Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous people associated with Harvard

Forever POV list. Originally began with, "The following is a list of people who I think Harvard wishes never attended its school." Was Prod'ed, but creator removed tag and intro sentence -- which doesn't really fix anything. Calton | Talk 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete personal attacks - point 9 of
  WP:NOR. LjL 01:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per LjL. Bucketsofg✐ 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think, in its current incarnation, it really counts as an "attack page." If the page simply says, "these people did such and such terrible things, and all of said people went to Harvard," then- if only stating truths- it can't really be an attack. Thus, in my opinion, it's not a speedy deletion candidate. However, it's still, in an odd form, listcruft, and (as already stated) it will inherently be POV. -- Kicking222 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that it's not really an attack page, but the list is a bit absurd, subtly implying that Harvard University graduates are supposed to be good, perfect people. Perhaps the information could survive as part of a Notable Alumni section of the Harvard University article (although that section should also include positive figures as well). joturner 01:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as attack and redundant. Harvard has a "Notable Alumni" section already, and it contains all the people on this list that have their own wikipedia articles. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but not because it's a personal attack page. Rather, because the concept is better expressed elsewhere in other ways (for example, through Notable Alumni). - Richardcavell 02:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When an article groups murderers together with plagiarists under the category of "infamous people", I think that means its concept is too broad for encyclopedic treatment. --Metropolitan90 03:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete but "Theodore Kaczynski || sent unpleasant packages in the mail" might be funny enough for BJAODN. - CNichols 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I go with the notable alumni idea. jbolden1517^Talk 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently broad and POV.
  masterka 05:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NPOV violation. Far better to categorise these people as notable alumni of the college and place details as to their notability on their respective article pages.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Really bad idea and inherently POV. Rockpocket (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per
  WP:LIVING: "Administrators encountering articles that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, may delete the article without discussion". --Rob 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• BJAODN per CNichols. After that, Speedy Delete. --Icarus 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted. This to me looks like a pretty clear violation of
  WP:CSD A6 is intended to tackle, in spirit if not exactly by letter (e.g. labeling people as being "war criminals" or as having "stolen from sick children". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Kevin Doran

This page makes no claims to notability and appears to be vanity. The subject admits in his blog to being at "such an early stage" in his career. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 02:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Don't know about no claims to notability, creating a novel form of haiku seems a pretty notable claim to me. Rockpocket (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Richardcavell 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as things stand. He is active on the poetry scene as in Google results (not all about him though). However, unless there's more material, he's not sigificant enough at this stage. Note this is the editor's second article on a poet.
  AGF Tyrenius 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per
  WP:BIO as claims of notability are not obviously citable. Will reconsider if sources are found. Rockpocket (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete - two blogs don't cut it for notability. 83.77.219.198 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)- sorry, thought I was logged in... this was my post Trm3 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per NN Ydam 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find it odd that no one has elected to delete the Nelson page, despite the Doran one having more information. That he created a novel form of haiku is one of the reasons i started the page -- not many people create a new poetry form, especially in haiku. And being at an early stage in his career (publishing work for two years) doesn't discredit that. --User:Userblade
  
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg✐ 14:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems still to be at college. Blog indicates youth and zeal rather than notability. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Come back when there is a major published work. --
  talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lack of notability. --Adrift* 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As i just wrote on my blog, i don't really agree with keeping this page, either. Though i'm confused, also, why J. D.'s page hasn't had any delete request. In what way is J. D. more notable than i am? As i outlined, the only difference between him and i is the country we were born in -- it's interesting that the person who first requested the delete (a self-confessed new-page delete nazi) is American. I have no problem with seeing this go, but unless you request a delete of J. D.'s page, also, i'd consider a retract (if that's at all possible); though it seems as though the first request has already set the ball in motion. ...As i don't refer to myself as a poet, a Google search of 'Kevin Doran poetry' might be better. 'seems still to be at college. Blog indicates youth and zeal rather' -- i know a 70-year-old man who went to uni to study a B.A. in Art. ...If there's a question of balance in the page, i can add info on several editors with whom i've had public (in a 'Net sense) 'disagreements', and where i've gone on to actually publish poems about it. If there's a question of bias in the description of the 'zine, there are a dozen name-attributable quotes on it from people in the publishing world, on the site itself. Am i permitted to edit such things in myself? As i said, i don't mind a deletion, just be fair to whoever wrote this. --KD

• Comment If you look at the page history, you'll see that the version I nominated for deletion doesn't contain information about J.D. Nelson, which was added in a subsequent revision by Userblade. Please be more careful before bandying about implicit accusations of national discrimination. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Similarly, you appear to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. An editor nominating one article is under no obligation to search for and nominate related articles of a similar level of notability (though they often do). Moreover, of the 10 deletionists whose motives you question in terms of nationality, please note that at least four are not American (three Brits and an Aussie). The great thing about blogs, is that errors can be corrected promptly. Rockpocket (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above.
  ^(talk) 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn self-admitted vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment '(not all about him though)' -- all but one link on the first three pages reference me. I wasn't aware i was that visible via Google. 'claims of notability are not obviously citable. Will reconsider if sources are found' -- what kind of sources? Does blog, listserv, and forum discussion count? 'two blogs don't cut it for notability' -- how about three? and one is a 'zine on blogger, anyway; there's several around. 'Please be more careful before bandying about implicit accusations of national discrimination' -- sorry, i thought you were overlooking the other page. Btw, i've seen Wiki pages on people that were two sentences long, how do they remain? --KD

Your free to nominate any article you want for deleation. ---J.S (t|c) 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response here --Chaser (T, C, e) 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per
  WP:BIO ---CH 08:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I personally like the article though it is too small. But we only let famous people have their own WP article (helps to be rich too). When he axe-murders someone and gets on TV then he can have his own article. As it stands now nobody ever heard of him. So delete per
  WP:NN.--AirportTerminal 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per
  WP:BIO. ---J.S (t|c) 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment 'To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters' --Jimmy Wales, founder and president of the Wikimedia Foundation. ...Strange that someone should then bring up that i'm still in college, and use that to imply that i'm too young ('youth and zeal') to have a Wikipage. ...This has all been an interesting experience. I note more than a dozen delete requests, here, and only three on J. D.'s page (btw, J. D. told me: 'I hope those Wikipedia bitches delete my page -- that site is useless'. Gotta love that guy). Is this perhaps because i recently outlined on my blog, using reference to Neil Gaiman, how Wiki editors are "'know-it-all' nazis"? Nah, i like you guys. I checked the rules, and saw it was okay to add some info in myself, so did so. Kevin Doran 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego ^talk 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa_Brooks

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified Ehusman 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's most likely vanity/spamming, but the content is notable. - Richardcavell 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've adjusted the article to remove a lot of the congratulatory statements. - Richardcavell 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Although the article makes claims of notability, I question them. Being "under contract" means works for. Traveling and giving seminars ... lots of people do that. Doesn't make them notable, it is just a feature of their work. A colorist in Austin, Texas ... doesn't sound notable. The only notability claims that may be "above the bar" might be her celebrity clients.... however, I don't think every stylist who works on a celebrity is notable... Only the last paragraph about magazine features might make her notable. However, all of this is unsourced. And if it is the case that she was the stylist for models appearing in the magazines, as opposed to having articles written about her, then this is not notable. —ERcheck @ 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borders on
    WP:COPYVIO from http://www.lisabonline.com/ - Lisa Brooks' website... see the About List section. The few minor edits since them make it not a direct copy, but if it qualifies as "plagarism". —ERcheck @ 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Very weak keep, just about squeezes into
  WP:BIO but only if the content - specifically regarding being featured in magazines - can be sourced appropriately. In light of of the information relevealed by  aeropagitica , i'm reconsidering. Delete.Rockpocket (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Looking at her website, it appears that she has received credits for the models' hair on magazine covers, rather than been mentioned on covers in her own right. Her winning awards might be notable but these need to be verified and sourced appropriately.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This link might give a truer picture of events. If she's so great, what's she doing entering a magazine competition to work with a hairdressing legend in 2005? Cut, blowdry and delete. Vizjim 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Snip this article from existance per Vizjim. Kimchi.sg 10:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – possible copyvio, notability claims unsourced – Gurch 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete let's wash this cruft right out of our hair. Notability unsupporetd by reliable sources, violates
  WP:VSCA. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete dubious notability, unverified Dlyons493 Talk 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear Vanity advert Ydam 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vizjim,
  RGTraynor 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per aeropagitica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs)
• Delete notibility and vanity. Crazynas 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of notability, unsourced claims.--Adrift* 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and transwiki. --Ezeu 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionista

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified. Moreover, it is not even close to being in compliance with other wiki standards, such as external links, etc. Ehusman 02:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - to retain the concept of a fashionista, but delete everything except the first paragraph because the reference to Lisa Brooks is an advert and probably non-notable. - Richardcavell 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) vote clarified; thanks to jbolden1517[reply]
• Delete the whole thing, as a dicdef. -- Grev 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From google: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,560,000 for fashionistas [3]. I think that justifies an article. Lets give this time to mature. jbolden1517^Talk 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove 70.112.46.50 (talk · contribs · count) Lisa Brooks edit.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article per Richardcavell, as the concept is notable. Delete the ad-spam though. Rockpocket (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ad-spam deleted. Keep the article itself, which is much more than a dic-def. Vizjim 08:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, it's a dicdef. Just zis Guy you know? 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as edited by Vizjim. Paddles 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richardcavell. Bucketsofg✐ 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as
  talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki as per JzG -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Transwiki this could be an article with more sources otherwise, per JzG. Crazynas 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable concept. hateless 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Transwiki agreed its a dicdef, but could make an interesting article if its flushed out--Adrift* 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per JzG. Beno1000 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  ^(talk) 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge anything worth keeping to Fashion. Ewlyahoocom 21:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki--
  Peta 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki/Delete - dicdef. —ERcheck @ 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing_LisaB

This and two other related pages are vanity articles whose contents are either not noteworthy or unverified. Moreover, it is not even close to being in compliance with other wiki standards, such as external links, etc. Ehusman 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - now this is advertising. - Richardcavell 02:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely vanity/self-promoting/non-notable phrase. —ERcheck @ 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either
  WP:CRUFT. All of 70.112.46.50 (talk · contribs · count)'s other edits have either been to Fashionista or Lisa Brooks, with a drop in on Carrie Bradshaw too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as advertising. Very self undulgent. Rockpocket (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Lisa Brooks sounds fabulous, darlings. Nevertheless, delete the advert. Vizjim 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete previously speedied as nonsense by Danny, and still nonsense now. Plus non-notable, uncited, vanity.
  WP:VSCA applies. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious advertising Ydam 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Google gets less than 2000 hits.--Jusjih 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Self promotion, name dropping, irrelevant. --Nosmo 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. None of the clothing seem to even be made from human skin. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nosense, and even if not, non notable. Crazynas 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity--Adrift* 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vain --
  talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Vanity. Just like the other Lisa Brooks article that just got deleted. Beno1000 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure advertisment.
  ^(talk) 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity advert.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as adcruft; companion article on Lisa Brooks already deleted ---CH 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete redundant copy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST

Redundant copy of

• Delete One copy's enough. Edit history is bizarre over the last three days. Author added a section to one article, then went over and added the same text to the other. Seems awfully pointless. Fan1967 02:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and no need to redirect. - Richardcavell 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. However, Wiki can be very confusing to newcomers.
  BITE Tyrenius 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete I think we all know how this one ends. jbolden1517^Talk 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article. Agree ... no need to redirect as this title is non-standard and not one that would be an expected search title.—ERcheck @ 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a replicated page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the crowd above. Rockpocket (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate content, speedy if at all possible. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 10:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both articles (yes I know this AFD only applies to this one) The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio of http://www.playbattlefield.com/battle/pub/faq/howto.thtml - speedily deleted

Playbattlefield

Delete - Non-notable online game. Prod removed without explanation. I've never put up a PROD that hasn't been removed by the editor without explanation. Wickethewok 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 10:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters III

Appears to violate

• Keep - Aykroyd has spoken about this. It's more than just crystal ballism. - Richardcavell 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They may sort of have an outline of a script. They don't have a firm cast. No filming has been scheduled. About as crystal as a ball can get. Fan1967 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This same rumor about a possible Ghostbusters III has been circulating for years. BigE1977 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rumored for more than a decade (at one point rumored to have Chris Farley and Will Smith as new Ghostbusters), has never materialized. Very crystal ball. - CNichols 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I seem to recall a deletion debate surrounding a movie that had been scrapped (and therefore would never get made, and therefore was unencyclopedic in terms of getting its own article), and before that, had a deletion debate that failed. There's nothing to indicate this won't get de-railed. Morgan Wick 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it can't get de-railed. It hasn't yet gotten railed. Fan1967 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - out of interest, did wikipedia have an article on Star Wars Episode 3 before it was made? - Richardcavell 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment History shows the article was created about a month after episode 2 came out. It is worth pointing out, though, that even then there were firm plans to film the movie. It had been announced as a second trilogy before episode 1 came out. This one, right now, consists of Ramis and Aykroyd saying they'd like to do another one. Fan1967 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No IMDb page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until the production receives the green light from a film studio, notable by a press release, then this should be deleted as speculation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speculative and unverifiable at the moment. Lets see come notification through official channels before we believe jobbing actors talking up their wishlist. Rockpocket (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of information available to discuss how this fell apart. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if you read the the link, you'll see that the movie is on track now. It may only be in pre-production, but the ball is roling. Besides, if the movie has been in the works for so long, souldn't that be in the article? Failled starts are still starts and it should be noted. And there are other pre-production movies that have articles without release dates in them, like Toy Story 3. JQF 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Google gets 730 hits only for now.--Jusjih 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I was ready to be persuaded by badlydrawnjeff's arguments, but then I did my research. This simply doesn't exist. Delete. Vizjim 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. So your research was contrary to my statement how? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information to discuss how it fell apart, at it was never together in the first place. Vizjim 10:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any pertinent info into the main
  RGTraynor 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete per RGTraynor Bucketsofg✐ 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Harold Ramis himself said: "We actually talked about it, wrote a story for it and did another draft, but we could not make the deal. Everyone had gotten so big that to get Ivan, Bill, Dan and I all packaged together, there wasn't enough in it for the studio." Aparently its not happening in the way this article portrays it.--Zer0faults 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as much as i would like to see it myself. viva vinz clortho! -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, has anyone actually READ the linked page in the article? It pretty much says they've started up again. JQF 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point it out: Ramis on Ghostbusters III JQF 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He says they have a script, and he has some opinions on who he'd like in the cast. That's still awfully hazy. Fan1967 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said that Dan Aykroyd and Rick Moranis will be reprising their roles, meaning some casting has happened, and it's something, which it means that there will probably be more. JQF 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said that Aykroyd and Moranis will be reprising their supporting roles, but they don't have a lead to replace Murray. It's something, all right. It's hope, just like they've had since the 90's. That's a long way from the cameras rolling. Fan1967 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is to be noted the linked article at IGN references a November 5th, 2005 report, its not a new report as the date of the IGN article would assume. Also to be noted is Ramis gave an interview here where he states

It would have been interesting. So, we even created a story around that. In the end, it sounds greedy, but the deal couldn't be made. We as an entity... Me... well, I'm low man on that totem pole deal-wise, but Ivan, Bill, Danny and me couldn't make a deal with the studio. There wasn't enough left for the studio.

Sorry if I broke any rules in the formatting of this comment, this just seems like IGN made a mistake by brining a Hollywood.com article back from its 2005 slumber. --Zer0faults 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article linked seems legit, 118,000 hits on Google. Crazynas 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm--Adrift* 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and cruft --
  talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with Ghostbusters. Do you have any idea how many people have a script written and some ideas about who they'd like to play the characters? More notable people than Ramis do and there are no articles about them. Aguerriero (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Palendrom 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. No release date, simply rumors and speculation.--Jersey Devil 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete just because a film is in preproduction does not mean it will be finished or released. Bwithh 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the movie actually starts filming, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid article.  Grue  14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--
  Peta 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- Who ya gonna call! Ewlyahoocom 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. RexNL 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with having an article about GB3, even though the movie might be a long way off. Mostly Rainy 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if the movie doesn't come to fruition, it was still in some form of existence worth mentioning.--Claude 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ghostbusters and/or Ghostbusters II. —204.42.24.32 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television commercials

Way too many to list, one of those lists that could last for ever and can become unsalvagle, listcruft Delete

• Keep - This is only the most notable TV commercials. Perhaps a better title would be List of popular television advertisements or something like that. - Richardcavell 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; and keep it to "only the most notable" how? This is going to be a magnet for accretion.
  RGTraynor 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This is the sort of thing where a web based encyclopedia can really trump a paper based one. Mass media studies is a legit field. If the article gets unwieldy we'll edit it not delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)
• Question - What are the criteria for inclusion, aside for the vague "notable".... awards? Attention in the popular media? Without a set guideline, as per Jaranda, this is an impossible list to keep.... the title lends itself to inclusion of any tv ad. —ERcheck @ 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This list is totally unstructured. Advertising campaigns have regional variations, are time-bound and a lot are region/market-specific. If I was researching this topic, I wouldn't want to have to wade through a huge list of irrelevant adverts to find the few for which I was looking. If this can't be structured by date/region/subject or other criteria then it should be deleted, as it will quickly grow to be useless.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Either this article focuses only one the most notable, what, ten or fifteen adverts of all time from each of the 200 countries around the world, in which case it's POV, or it lists all of them, in which case it's an indiscriminate collection of information. Either way, it dies now. Vizjim 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – "popular" and "notable" are very vague terms when applied to television commercials, it would certainly be impossible to list all commercials in such a list, and such a list would need to be much more organised than this – Gurch 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vizjim and Gurch, couldn't have said it better myself. Metros232 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorise -- GWO
• Delete categories, people. This is a practically unlimited list. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft/POV. Paddles 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as it doesn't attempt to be a list of every commercial ever. If it's only listing notable ads especially mostly just those that already have wiki entries then I don't have a problem with it Ydam 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the possibilities for inclusion are far too broad. List is POV as to what is "notable". ~~ Brother William 13:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems an indiscriminate collection of information, one of the things that wikipedia is
  WP:NOT Bucketsofg✐ 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sort of useful list, actually. Shows which tv adverts we have articles on. Could be converted to a category, if you like. Kim Bruning 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a category is better for these types of articles. Thanks

^{wat's sup} 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

^{wat's sup} 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I think it would be a good idea to change the title of this article to reflect that it is not intended to be a complete list of all TV commercials ever made. It is definitely worthwhile to keep a list of notable commercials as people studying mass media would find this very useful. Amazinglarry 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally subjective and unmaintainable listcruft. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- OOZ662 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the users above--Adrift* 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad. --Strothra 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category would be better. --
  talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not just is it an unmaintainable list, but a category for TV commercials already exists! That's more than enough for me to vote to kill this thing. -- Kicking222 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft, the topic is so broad that the article could be infinately large.--Jersey Devil 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous list as would get very long very quickly and is unmaintainable. Bwithh 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please. Unmaintainable.
  ergot 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Unlike some lists, this subject is better served by a category. In addition, who is it up to to decide if a commercial is 'popular and notable', as there is no magical fairy of NPOV-ness around to do so. -- saberwyn 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All the commercials were bought and paid for by rich corporations and were shown to millions of people. Wikipedia exists to spread information from the mainstream media. You can't get any more mainstream than this! The list should be expanded! Where are the Mentos commericals? Where are the Tab cola commercials? If the mod deletes this then at least merge the info somewhere else.--AirportTerminal 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental flaw in the above reasoning, AirportTerminal, lies here: Wikipedia exists to spread information from the mainstream media. Why do you believe this? It is not true. —Encephalon 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good grief. —Encephalon 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Deleteme42 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as there are probably millions of TV adverts which could be thought of as "notable". It's just not possible to list them all. In addition, a notable commercial to one person could mean nothing to another person; it's a matter of opinion. Andrew 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete or move to List of notable television commercials; otherwise this page will have nearly an infinite length. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deizio talk 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Communities

Reads like a Advert for non-notable organization, not very sure about prod so placing it here Delete

• Keep per rewrite, good job Muffuletta
  ^{wat's sup} 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree it reads like an ad, at least as it is now. On the other hand I know from local experience that the group exists and has attracted a lot of volunteers, and the subject merits an article. If I have time in the next day or two, I'll write a new stub from scratch with two or three references. If not, I agree it should go. -- Muffuletta 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I rewrote the article, removed the npov and cleanup tags, but left the afd tag. I suggest we keep it, see if it grows. -- Muffuletta 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The article has to keep the AfD tag until the AfD page is closed, whether it's rewritten or not. Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep sounds over-hyped but also sounds notable --MarsRover 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless someone rewrites this. Reads like a recruitment literature for the organisation. Kimchi.sg 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Keep, the rewrite was a good job! Kimchi.sg 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unless rewritten, sounds like a copyvio and even if it isn't, the tone is inappropriate – Gurch 11:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising or POV at minimum. Social responsibility doesn't give immunity to WP inclusion criteria. Paddles 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Vote changed on the basis of Muffeletta's rewrite. Kudos. Paddles 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we can keep it, as per Muffuletta. Kim Bruning 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep At this point doesn't sound exactly notable, but a rewrite might reveal potential notability and inclusion to Wiki.--Adrift* 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sounds much better--Adrift* 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Paddles Bwithh 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Paddles wrote their opinion before the rewrite, and this "as per paddles" was made after the rewrite. Eh? Kim Bruning 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless author can provide verification that charity in good standing and that this doesn't violated
  WP:NN.---CH 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"The group began with assistance from the International Humanities Center, which provides 501[c](3) fiscal sponsorship." I don't know US law enough. Is that sufficient standing? Kim Bruning 10:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article can and should be expanded and improved, but it is a legitimate subject. Along with Common Ground Collective, it is one of the most noteworthy grass roots oriented relief organzations involved in the biggest disaster to a metropolitian area in the USA in 99 years. -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corkscrew (Alton Towers)

Do we need to have articles for individual roller coasters? I would have used prod for this, but there is no official guideline that applies. There seems to be nothing special about this one, and its existence here might be construed as promotion, so delete. (changed, see below) Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the author can't think of anything interesting to say then I see no reason to consider it noteworthy jbolden1517^Talk 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't see this making much of an article, although when I was a kid at any rate this one was the largest and most famous rollercoaster in the UK. mgekelly 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that would be good to mention at least, if it can be verified. I intend to {{
  prod}} all the other roller coasters at Alton Towers; apparently there's a cluster of these articles. That is, unless someone votes to keep before this is done. Mangojuice^talk 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep There are over a hundred and sixty articles about individual rollercoasters and as already mentioned this was certainly the most famous in the UK at the time. It is at the UK's leading theme park. It is certainly more notable than dozens of the American rollercoasters with articles. Seven other rollercoaters at Alton Towers have articles and the nominator has not given any reason for singling this one out for deletion. They are linked by a template, so deleting this would break the series and create at least seven red links. Choalbaton 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - any reason Alton Towers is being singled out? This one is as notable as any of the other rollercoasters with articles. Rockpocket (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. There should be an article on this, because it was a byword for big rollercoasters in the UK for years. But it should be possible to make it a bit more interesting. Vizjim 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's of interest to some people (no different from popcult fancruft on here). Is notable to the many poeple who go on it annually! Verifiable. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable coasters. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – part of a series, plenty of other articles on rollercoasters. Expansion strongly recommended, though – Gurch 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- if any individual UK rollercoaster can be worthy of an article, this is it. -- GWO
• Keep Other roller coasters at alton towers currently have articles. As long as this one is as notable as the others I say keep. Article is a bit POV though.Ydam 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand. I see no strong reason to delete. Try to expand.--Jusjih 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

roller coasters are often unique and interesting structures. Kim Bruning 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- But since it is a notable roller coaster make the edit and the backlink to
  Notable roller coasters. jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand. Crazynas 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand... appears notable.--Adrift* 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand it's a notable UK structure so I see no reason to delete it. --ericthefish 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep expand --
  talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep well, I'm definitely not going to {{
  WP:N is not an official guideline. Mangojuice^talk 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I don't get 'em (roller coasters) any more than the nom, but there's no indication of hoaxery or a problem for the rest of WP, so let him do his thing, which from the sidebar appears to be all the worlds roller coasters. (I hope there are not more than a few dozen.) ---CH 08:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A3.

EWaiter

Advertising for non-notable company. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD under A3 essentially an external link. —ERcheck @ 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silda Wall

Non-notable: a lawyer whose only claim to fame seems to be that her husband is a relatively obscure, if notable, politician mgekelly 04:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I vote against deletion. Besides the fact I created most of the content in this article, the fact is that both Silda Wall and Eliot Spitzer are well-known among lawyers and politicians throughout the United States. Spitzer is quite prominent as the most aggressive attorney general today in America---he's a classic example of a lawyer using the AG job to get into the governor's office. Wall is prominent as a highly successful attorney who put aside her career to focus on raising their family and supporting her husband's career. --Coolcaesar 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the wife of Eliot Spitzer makes a person notable enough for me. - Richardcavell 05:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Eliot Spitzer -- Spitzer is fairly well-known across the United States. Wall is frequently mentioned in articles about Spitzer's campaign (e.g. [4]). - Anirvan 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well obviously I didn't realise how important the husband is. But I still don't see what is notable about his wife. I think the logic that being married to someone very notable makes you notable by default is wrong. If there is interesting information about her personally, I'd reconsider, but it seems to me that giving up her career to raise children and support her husband is unexceptional. mgekelly 07:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wall is prominent as a highly successful attorney who put aside her career to focus on raising their family and supporting her husband's career, i.e. she isn't prominent. Vizjim 09:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- being married to a famous person does not automatically bestow notability. And does not in this case. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the Children for Children Foundation website does not mention her in their [foundation page] so she seems to be just one of the parents involved in it's foundation. The org seems notable but Silda seems not. Peripitus 09:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk. DarthVader 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See "Mrs. Spitzer Suits Up: Attorney Silda Wall Never Counted On Becoming—Eccch!—a Candidate’s Wife" from
  Nelson Ricardo 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – possibly merge with Eliot Spitzer, not sufficiently notable to warrant her own article – Gurch 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mgekelly and Vizjim. Paddles 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Spitzer's article and redirect. She's not notable enough to have her own page, and that foundation not listing her doesn't help her case. -- Kicking222 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable with less than 900 hits.--Jusjih 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Spitzer is famous within the United States, and has been heard of by those of us blessedly outside. His wife probably doesn't need her own article, but there's no reason why it couldn't be merged in with his. We delete information because it doesn't belong, not just for the heck of it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm a Spitzer fan, I live in NJ and I've never heard of her. She isn't notable enough as a famous wife and she isn't notable enough as a lawyer or activist. jbolden1517^Talk 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's take this to its logical conclusion; suppose Spitzer wins the NY gubernatorial race? Well, as it happens, the wife of Massachusetts' governor doesn't have an article. Neither does the spouse of Vermont's governor. Jon Corzine had a very messy, public divorce, and his ex- doesn't have an article. Jodi Rell's husband isn't even named in her article, never mind have one of his own. Ed Rendell's wife is the only one of any nearby state governor's to have an article, and at least she's been a Federal judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for the last decade. If governors' spouses aren't notable by definition, a state attorney-general's spouse sure as hell isn't. What is the basis for assuming that Wall is either "prominent" or "highly successful?" That she worked for a giant law firm once?
  RGTraynor 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Kicking222. Crazynas 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Only notable in that she's married to someone notable. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As long as there is verifiable information about her then she should be kept (unless you can argue that she will not be taking a major part in his attempt to be elected). Another reason why
  notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]