Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 17

• Strong delete, violates
  WP:V; not even a plausible or humorous hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as complete
  ^Talk 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The information can't be verified; the doctors mentioned at the bottom of the article don't seem to exist. WODUP 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. - Aagtbdfoua 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. -- Mithent 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Lemonsawdust 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - per all above, tagged as speedy.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt. Complete nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but previous deleted versions are all very different from this one so this is not a re-creation per
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:14Z
• Delete and consider salting per everyone. --Charlene 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

Demonic car concept

Demonic car concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear

• Delete per nom, original research and the important information's already in the other article. -- Mithent 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, fails
  WP:NOR.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as WP:OR - there may be plenty of demon cars, and associated articles, but there are no sources on the concept of demon cars - Tiswas^(t/c) 10:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's not even an article on the concept of demon cars. It's just listcruft OR - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears to be a subset of the List of fictional vehicles - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - same explanation as Tiswas: this is OR. Nihiltres 14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced, and is really a list of movies. -- Whpq 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good example of what a article should not be.--St.daniel ^talk 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Realkyhick 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOR violations. Acalamari 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  ✎talk 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into Phantom vehicle. // Liftarn
• Delete - original research. Metamagician3000 13:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

List of gimmicks in television shows

List of gimmicks in television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Heavy on the

• Delete per nom. The page gimmick already has some examples of gimmicks in TV shows, we don't need to have an exhaustive and ill-defined list. -- Mithent 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gotta say delete on this one. Too broad, inevitable OR problems. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails
  WP:NOT. Info in list is covered in main articles.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unsourced, no criteria for inclusion, and an
  indiscriminate list. --Cyrus Andiron 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- Would be a good categorie although even that is a little to broad. --St.daniel ^talk 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic, will have POV problems and OR. --Dweller 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, trivial,
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. One man's gimmick is another man's plot device. Very ill-defined and subject to POV. Realkyhick 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT violations. Acalamari 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Define a Gimmick. Would have some
  ✎talk 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005

List of short stories that appeared in the New Yorker in 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete as this kind of list is a directory. The New Yorker is certainly welcome to keep a catalog of stories that appear in its pages. I can imagine there might be some value as a category, but even that's somewhat dubious. Might be worthwhile to talk about some of the major stories that have appeared in the New Yorker, in its own article, but a yearly list? Too much. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, fails
  WP:NOT.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT and the fact that this would make a much better category than a list. --Charlene 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A much better category? Only four or five of these items have blue links. How can it possibly be a category? I don't understand your point at all. Can you please explain? AndyJones 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wouldn't suggest categorization by year, but given that some short stories are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and that the New Yorker publishes a lot of short stories, having the ability to reference what's been in the New Yorker and what's not might be a good category. OTOH, a lot of magazines publish short stories, so covering them all could be a problem. I'm not convinced of it either way, but I do see some potential. FrozenPurpleCube 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too directory-like. AndyJones 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost all redlinks, and magazine-index information of this sort isn't encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, this definitely falls under
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete All red links --St.daniel ^talk 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a directory. Realkyhick 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete
  WP:NOT violation. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Blatant violation of
  WP:NOT#DIR. Also, we'd have to start doing this for each year, and that would be a waste of time. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT. Adambro 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very Strong Delete This article violates
  WP:NOT. Wikipedia in NOT a directory. Mayank Abhishek 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per FrozenPurpleCube
  ✎talk 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

Star Wars Combine

Star Wars Combine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Delete unless sources can be added. Even links to some of the claimed academic articles would at least lead me to say provisional keep. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. It's an online game, by the way. I wonder why the nominator didn't mention that. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:25Z
• Delete. I see notability, but without valid reliable sources I've gotta vote delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add sources - I am/was a developer for the game, I can confirm it and "source" it all myself, I can try and find online sources for some of the information as well though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, you can't assert sources through personal knowledge. While that may allow you to know things, the rest of Wikipedia can't rely on you being who you say you are. Now you can certainly use that knowledge to know where to look for sources, in which case I'll change my opinion, so good luck! FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI He is who he says he is But you have to remember there isnt a lot of sites that even mention Browser based games much less reviews which is why it is hard to find third party sites regarding it. WillSWC 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unofficial fangame - if someone presents some decent sources, I would reconsider. --Fredrick day 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm a MMORPG player of an older game myself, but without any independent sources listed, let alone verifiable ones, this fails
   RGTraynor  13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - unsourced -- Whpq 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With sources (which it now has) is a fair article. --St.daniel ^talk 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sources listed are self-referential, two of which are from the game's own website. Are there any reliable, independent, third-party, published sources?
   RGTraynor  17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Such as...Not many sites do reviews of Online games much Browser Based games. WillSWC 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Many sites do reviews of online games, especially browser based games, well, many is subjective but there are quite a few if you're willing to look. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: People will look at the article before voicing their opinion, simply saying you've added sources won't work unless you actually add them. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all others, especially RGT. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the mere fact that it is a Star Wars video game makes it notable, it fails notability.
  bio) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Just because its a unofficial game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Give me 5 days and I'll work on it and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. WillSWC 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I've found the following 5 Links relateing to the Star Wars Combine which, while not the greatest are "independent, third-party, published", http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=50 http://apexwebgaming.com/profile/162/Star-Wars-Combine http://www.omgn.com/gamesdirectory.php?Item_ID=872 http://top50.onrpg.com/index.php?a=stats&u=1000 http://www.games-academy.de/IGDA/tabelle.php?hauptteil=summaryreports WillSWC 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not according to
   RGTraynor  23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Err...Since when has any of those listed Magazines ever Reviewed a Browser Based Game? If they ever have I sure havent heard of them. They do MMORPG games, yes but you have to relize that a Browser Based game of any kind is not often if ever mentioned in main stream media even if its as large as a game such as Gaia Online. WillSWC 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about it being on the Bobby Blackwolf Show, a podcast from All Games Radio? http://www.swcombine.com/technical/about/Bobby%20Blackwolf%20Interview.mp3 See the bottom link for the .mp3 (I didnt link directly to the mp3 since it takes a while to load and would kill Dial-up.) WillSWC 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to read the relevant policies governing sources at

WP:RS

, which would clear up your questions. That being said:

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

• "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."

• "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Blogs, bulletin board reviews and podcasts are not published.

 RGTraynor  16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Well I'm not going to waste any more of my time argueing with you. Its obvious you don't understand that a Browser Based game rarely if ever warrants printed sources. Simply because somethings not in Game Informer doesnt mean its not worthey of an article. I am tired of perfectly good articles being removed. WillSWC 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether browser-based games warrant printed sources or not is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that Wikipedia articles are required to satisfy
   RGTraynor  17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment:
  AFDs last for five days so you still have approximately three days to add those sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

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

)

• Delete as a neologism. Ask me again once it makes it into the Oxford English Dictionary. Actually, you don't have to wait that long. Ask me when pink elephants fly. :) YechielMan 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joking: can it be carried by birds? :) Nihiltres 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'd settle for an article in a
  reliable source on the concept. That could happen soon, or it could not. At the moment, this is promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unusual to see a neologism that's almost spamworthy. --Dweller 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism that almost smacks of
   RGTraynor  13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - this certainly seems to violate
  WP:NOR. Nihiltres 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Badly-disguised spam. Realkyhick 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam, and per everyone else. Acalamari 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a whale of a

Iqaluit Whales

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

Article is about a supposed National Hockey League team that won a Stanley Cup and is only three years old, but no indications to support this team actually exists (thus, this is a hoax). Contested prod. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Lemonsawdust 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete complete
  WP:BOLLOCKS. 75 foot goaltender named Big Whale? -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. —

Stuck Family

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

An unsourced, non-notable, vanity page.

• Strong delete per the nom. Indisputably is
  what Wikipedia is not. Should be a speedy db-bio/group, really. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, created by
  not. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as copyright violation. Mostly copied from this and this. —Celithemis 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in English. --

Comic book names in Finnish

Comic book names in Finnish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if you want to know the name of a comic in Finnish, go to the article here and look at the interwikilink. This is the English language Wikipedia.

Fram 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. As above, interwiki is sufficient, an all-inclusive Original language names of comics might make sense, but not this. MURGH ^disc. 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really, this one is a no brainer. Why Finnish? Why comics? What context? Where is it sourced? Why in the blue hell do we need it? --Cyrus Andiron 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You've gotta be kidding. Realkyhick 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you kept it, "Star Wars characters in Papiamento" would be notable too. Virtual Cowboy 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above. Although lists of fictious characters in various languages could be informative, they don't belong here. — JyriL ^talk 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overbroad in inclusion, and likely unencyclopedic; This sort of stuff seems to work rarely. If you have to do it, cover it in the articles of the characters themselves, or possibly appropriately chopped up in Finnish Wikipedia. (For a good example of how this is done, see Asterix#Comparison of names of major characters; you compare and explain the French (original) and English translations (since this is the English Wikipedia).) You should cover the differing character names only when they're somehow remarkable anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no good reason to keep it and sets a silly precedent. Incidentally, a good example of this sort of thing done well is at Lord Voldemort. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Poistaa, as per nom.Peeper 10:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Larry Sanders Show. fishhead64 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show

List of awards won by The Larry Sanders Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Ironically, should be called "List of awards lost by The Larry Sanders Show", and as such, the actual awards won (all 10 of them) should be included in the show's main article. This just seems to be an attempt to replicate the IMDb page for this. Great show though, should have won a lot more. Saikokira 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Info belongs in main article.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Info belongs in the main article RogueNinja_talk 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article -- Whpq 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Condense heavily and merge. Hey now! You can squeeze the nominations down quite a bit by getting rid of the tables. Realkyhick 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. Also condense. Lemonsawdust 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above to main article.
  bio) 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - info would overwhelm the main article, which needs expansion besides awards. - Peregrine Fisher 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (marginal keep). fishhead64 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Dave

East Side Dave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This biography has no sources and contains derogatory personal information - "...notable for his...notorious boasts, alcoholism, and outlandish claims". The subject is a non-notable radio show character/associate producer. Will Beback · † · 01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability, no sources.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:BIO. For all the assertions, this fellow has only a hundred Ghits [1], which is a startlingly low total for a purported major radio personality. Just plain no evidence of notability.  Ravenswing  13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Many statements were made on air on the XM program and are difficult to document, although they can be cited to be direct quotes from the broadcast, personally I've heard verification of all but the hot dog vendor background information. I have added some cites to the entry to confirm the most outlandish claims and more are forthcoming. Noderose 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm afraid that statements made on the air don't qualify as "independent" sources with proven fact-checking. If no reliable, independent, published sources are available, then this fellow just doesn't clear the verification and notability bars.  Ravenswing  17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO, not notable. Realkyhick 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I think the article needs major cleanup, and probably should be brought down to a paragraph or two (removing all the comedy bits and show humor). But he is a producer & on air talent of a notable radio show (XM & FreeFM). --Bill.matthews 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a source or two which establish that this person is notable? He's not a star of the show. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he's not the star, but I would say he has a 'significant role' in the radio show, and even a 'a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' (per [WP:BIO]] Special Cases: Entertainers) --Bill.matthews 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. If he has a significant cult following then we should be able to document it. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want documentation, the closest I can think of off of the top of my head is one of the multitude of websites. I would list them but I'm not sure that that would be allowed. Suffice it to say that a Google search of either "Ron and Fez" or "Opie and Anthony" should produce more than enough results. There are three or four major websites devoted to the show, as well as five or six other minor/B-Level sites. If it would be allowed to name the websites for the purposes of research and confirmation, please let me know.
          DestradoZero 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • As for confirmation of his cult following, if there was a way to find out how many people have Dave Identification Cards, that would probably suffice. It amounts to a fan club specifically for Dave. I don't know where you'd find out the number but fans often identify with their Dave ID Card number when calling the show. Noderose 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are certainly ghits for the show, but there aren't many ghits for the radio personality named "East Side Dave". [2] Numeorus mentions in a fan forum don't establish notability. -Will Beback · † · 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like just a guy doing his job. Just because his job is on the radio, doesn't make him notable. It does not look like he has done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like certain radio shows, he is one of the on-air personalities as well as simply being a producer. He has been integral to quite a few of Ron and Fez's ongoing bits. If you listen to the show, you know who he is simply because he takes part in SO MUCH of the show. He isn't a sidekick/producer in the manner of the majority of radio talk shows. He should be kept because of his prominence within the show, without a doubt.
  DestradoZero 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO. Indrian 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• done anything that a million other radio sidekicks have done. - BierHerr 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DestradoZero --Whackbagger 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia not being paper isn't really an argument to keep an article, and there has to be some other reason. I can't see any such reason being provided here. --

List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show

List of guest stars on The Flip Wilson Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete per nom RogueNinja_talk 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should take up whether guest appearances lists are notable at one fell swoop; this will get deleted then someone will nominate the endearing
  List of Family Guy Guest Stars, Guest stars of Class of the Titans, List of guest stars of ER (TV series), a few others exist as redirects to the show's article or a list of all actors in the show. Let's do this consistently. Carlossuarez46 02:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "That Wikipedia is biased against African Americans? That Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously? Maybe all of those and maybe they are true." With ridiculous and offensive comments like that it's obvious you can't be taken seriously, so I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. You want to have a discussion on policy, do it somewhere else. And see
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS while you're gone. Saikokira 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You seem to be confused about the point Carlossuarez46 is trying to make. He is not arguing to keep this article because of the existence of these other articles. Rather, he is arguing that the result of this AfD ought to apply to these other similar lists, and that a failure to be consistent in this regard reflects badly on Wikipedia. I think it's a worthwhile point. --Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I can't figure for the life of me what Mr. Suarez said to provoke such a hostile reaction. I agree with the nomination, but I'm sure we can disagree in a civil manner.

 RGTraynor  14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I placed his comments in italics, so it should have been clear what I found offensive. He suggested that deleting this article but keeping The Simpsons list would show that Wikipedia is "biased against African Americans". That is ridiculous and offensive, sorry if I sounded hostile for pointing it out. I try to be civil, but I have no patience for people who play the "race card". Also, if you look at Carlossuarez46's comments in other similar afds, his opinion on these lists is most definitely that they should be kept, so even though it might not be apparent that's what his intention is here, I have no reason to think his opinion has suddenly changed. Saikokira 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, fails
  WP:NOT.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete completely
  indiscriminate list. In addition, as this is without any context of the guest appearances, it's pretty meaningless. Ohconfucius 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, listcruft. (I tend to agree that the other guest lists should go, too.) Realkyhick 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  ✎talk 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep,
  Matthew 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep,
  WP:NOT#PAPER, but mostly becuase it could be improved. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep,
  WP:NOT#PAPER, and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails WP:NOT/WP:LIST. I doubt this is ever going to be improved, or that would have happened in the 12 months since it was last AFD'd. Masaruemoto 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indescriminate list. Indrian 06:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A good example of what a list shouldn't be like. Pufnstuf 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.

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

)

• Speedy Delete Spam for a NN company. TJ Spyke 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No longer reads like an advertisement. TJ Spyke 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has adequate referencees. "With a revenue of $2.1 billion and over 8100 employees it is the 10th largest software company in the world" is a good assertion of notability. --Eastmain 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate sources. Largest private software company in the world, 10th largest software company, 3rd largest business applications provider behind SAP and Oracle.
  Pdelongchamp 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obviously notable from the article and adequately sourced, Was outrageously full of linkspam, but i just removed it all.DGG 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability requirements of
  WP:CORP. A couple of the provided sources are obvious press releases and don't serve to meet the notability standards, but the canada.com, System iNetwork and eWeek.com sources appear to be independent. Neil916 (Talk) 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as above. Nom seems confused as to the particulars of G11. It does not, as some would have it, prohibit articles about companies; it only prohibits corporate articles that "exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person ..." As it happens, the article peddles no products.
   RGTraynor  14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - Well referenced, my citation request was fulfilled quickly.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rewrite did the trick. Realkyhick 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

Thrall road

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

Road of micronotability. The small claims made are the only things which made me bring this here rather than prodding it - hopefully someone who knows the area will be able to confirm or deny the road's relevance in the grand scheme of things. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, not notable.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability is not for the road itself, but for an event that happened there. The event itself was of marginal notability, so the article should go. YechielMan 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made famous? In what context? Was the movie actually about this road? Filmed on this road? The reader is left to wonder what kind of tenuous connection exists between this movie and
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, agree totally with YechielMan. Realkyhick 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn); article was totally rewritten after nomination. —

Captain Cutaneum

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

Article is not notable, poorly written and unverefied. I tried to speedy it, but it was contested. I withdraw my nomination, as long as the article is not kept in the current garbage form. RogueNinja_talk 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I've updated it; give it a look. --Charlene 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have speedied it as CSD A7. YechielMan 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh boy. I assumed it was some kind of hoax. I googled. He really does exist - he's some kind of public safety character in the Phoenix area, and he's played by a reputable dermatologist. We have reliable sources ([3] and [4], as well as [5] - don't know if a Publishers Weekly blog is a RS), but the article needs to be rewritten. But before I do it, does he pass - well, I'm not even sure what policy this would fall under. --Charlene 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep 1 hit in Factiva hinted at notability and sure enough, Google confirmes it: [6], [7], [8], and [9] (same as the Factiva article) are all independent detailed write-ups of this cartoon character. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:30Z

Comment In that case, delete as advertisement RogueNinja_talk 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold on: I'm writing a new, NPOV, substantiated article based on Google results. The original article isn't an ad per se, though: it's just a bunch of very sensible skin care tips that don't really belong under this article heading. --Charlene 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, then the solution to poorly written prose is to rewrite, not delete. I've stubbed the article to remove the tips, will add the references later because I need to go afk now. —

Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:38Z

I'm rewriting it; no need to. By the way, he's mentioned not just in local newspapers but also as the sole subject of a major article in one of the world's most important dermatology journals. That's notable, so I vote Strong keep. --Charlene 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup, looks like this guy is in fact
  talk/review) 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks guys, I'm new to this. Presidentlines 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanocentrism

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

Original research. Works cited in the reference section are mostly on generic Japanese hitory and/or Japanese nationalism and none of them studies such a concept as "Japanocentrism." There are already articles on

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  n (page - messages - contribs) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It is a neologism/protologism, and as constituted might violate
  WP:SOAP. I also agree that the intended topic is covered through the established topics and articles Japanese nationalism and Nihonjinron. On the other hand, Bhumiya finds lots of holes in our coverage of topics, so I'd like to hear about why he created the article. It's remained mostly unchanged since he introduced it in 2005. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The title is not a protologism. I've found quite a few occurrences of it in books, such as ISBN 0415297907, which covers various aspects of Japanocentrism on pages 91, 123–124, and 193–195, for example. That, and the various scholarly papers on the subject, such as this, convince me that there is a proper documented concept here, that is linked in the literature to other concepts such as Mingei and sakoku. (ISBN 0521003628 discusses the Japanocentrism of the idea that the History of Japan has "an open/closed rhythm", in that it ignores the existence of similar phenomena in Korea and in China, on page 9, for example.) Whilst the article content strays from what is actually supported by the literature that I can find, that is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, with the aforementioned sources (and others) in hand. Administrator intervention is not required. Keep. Uncle G 08:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory that you possibly found in google book search only describes the multicultural aspect of Japan's Oriental Orientalism (the very subject of the book) being "Janpanocentric" because while Oriental Orientalism embraces cultural diversity within the Orient it also assumes that the core culture of the Orient is Japanese. "Janpanocentric" here is just an expression the author used (like many other xxxx-centrism) and is not a fullfledged concept on its own, and naturally has got nothing to do with the content of this Wikipedia article. --Saintjust 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. It has quite a lot to do with the content of this article. For example: What the book says about Japanocentrism on page 91 covers much the same territory as is covered in the article's "Early forms" section. That you think that it's "just an expression that the author used" is belied by what the author xyrself thinks, which is clearly implied by xyr inclusion of Japanocentrism as a subject in the book's index. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are about 150 Google hits; perhaps I shouldn't have called it a protologism, though I'm still not convinced it isn't a neologism. The 2005 IJAS paper that you cite does use the term, but based on the abstract, the topic appears to be nihonjinron and its historiography. I'm still unconvinced that the article is on an independent topic. I did leave a note for Bhumiya, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. As for the paper, the topic really is Japanocentrism, as demonstrated both by its title and the (second) paper that it introduces, which discusses the adaptation of Sinocentrism into Japanocentrism. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the constitution of the individual Google hits failed to convince me that this is a separate topic. The fact that there are few hits is one that we can consider in judging whether the term is a neologism, even if that evidence is not all-encompassing. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I recognize that pages of this sort are somewhat subjective and difficult to assess, and while I can assure you that none of what I wrote is original research, much of it is scantly if not uniquely documented. I created this expecting that it would be heavily modified and probably provoke lots of argument, which is a good thing. My chief intention, in creating such a provisional page, was to separate the phenomenon of Japanese ethnic chauvinism from the discipline of Nihonjinron, which I would consider a different matter - related, but unambiguously different, just as, say

Bhumiya (said/done) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to be clear, the contents of this page were intended to be provisional. My main intention was simply to create an article for Japanocentrism that was separate from Nihonjinron. I am not a Japanese scholar, and was even less of one in 2005, so just about everything on the page is derivative from the sources, which seem sound. My main concern in this discussion is not to preserve my contributions to this page, but to preserve the essential distinction between Japanocentrism and Nihonjinron.

Bhumiya (said/done) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Agree with nomination's reasoning. Merge as a paragraph into
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:17Z
• Delete and/or redirect: fails
  WP:NUMBER, point 3. MER-C 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If I understand correctly, merge and delete isn't an option under the GFDL. That leaves us with the alternative of redirecting
  12988816 (number) to Pfaffian, which seems a bit odd ... cab 05:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We could move the page to somewhere like
    Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 08:56Z
  • Yes, there is nothing in the GFDL that prevents deleting unnecessary redirects. The closing guide for admins explains the recommended practice, which the previous comment summarizes. I don't know where this urban legend began, but this is not the first time I have run into it. CMummert · talk 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think numbers like these (with distinct properties) should be included in Wikipedia. This is because it is of some interest to mathematicians. Robinson weijman 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable in the field of combinatorics. The article is adequately referenced and not OR. -- Mikeblas 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone else pointed out, this does not seem to meet the notability requirements of
    WP:NUMBER or the informal requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. CMummert · talk 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep

By this, I mean the article "12988816" to be used more as a reference from another Wikipedia article than simply as an article one might look up directly (as a search).

I would normally come to the conclusion that the number (and information concerning it) should simply be added as additional information to a more general article in (the article, in this case, is probably the article on the Pfaffian method).

However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816" (in an attempt to find out more information on the number), so, it seemed reasonable to assume that if I searched for the number, then it would be very likely that there would be someone else who might do the same.

The number of edits of the article itself demonstrates that there is interest in this number. Note that the article has existed for a relatively short period of time and that it is in this short period of time that the relatively large number of edits took place.

• • 3. There are many articles similar to this one, which are also useful for reference.

For a typical example, the article for the number 495 may be viewed. My point here is not to say simply "there are other articles like this one", but to make the point that it is as useful for reference as some other articles.

• • 4. Professor
    Michael E. Fisher is an excellent, notable scientist and is a recipient of the Wolf Prize, the Boltzmann Medal
    and the Lars Onsager prize.

Some of this article concerns some of his work.

I reviewed the Wikipedia article on the notability of numbers. One quote from the article is the following:

"...highly composite numbers are notable enough to get their own article since they were studied by Paul Erdős"

It is understood from this statement that a number can be considered notable in Wikipedia by association with a notable person. While I don't really agree with this rationale, if I am to go by it, then an article for the number 12988816 is justified by the number's association with not one, but three notable people (one of which has a Wikipedia article etc).

• • 5. The Pfaffian calculation method mentioned in the article is a very useful one, applicable to a very wide range of subjects.

The article offers appropriate references to more comprehensive articles.

• • 6. The number 12988816 is the answer to a very common example problem designed for solution by the Pfaffian method.

With regards to the comment made above by CMummert "why not a 9x9 or 10x10 board?", an 8-by-8 board is of considerable notability as a Chessboard.

I honestly think that the addition of this article can only help make Wikipedia more useful and that the benefits of having the article outweigh the drawbacks. Further, the article itself could be used as the location to place more information on the number (existing information and information yet to be discovered).

ZICO 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numbers with notable properties should be included in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think the article should be kept because it is in relation to a commonly used mathematical method. The chessboard/domino question is often used to describe the pfaffian calculation method. The number itself is of interest to mathematicians. I searched for 12988816 after looking at the question, to see if it had any interesting properties. Containment 15:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) — Containment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Mathematicians and physicists like Okounkov and Fisher find it interesting. I've added a few more categories to show how interesting it is. I've also created the following magic square (of composite numbers) that has digital root of 7 for both its magic constant and itself just to show how interesting this number really is:

Giftlite 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to
  WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Still rename, but make this title redirect to
    10000000 per Septentrionalis —David Eppstein 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. That it superficially appears to be only about an unimportant problem about tiling a chessboard with dominoes may disguise the fact that it's notable because it illustrates the mathematical method, which could be applicable in scientific problems. Michael Hardy 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the method is worth covering, but there is another article for the method. Pfaffian#Applications would be a more logical place for this example. WikiProject Numbers (before it was defunct) thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article. CMummert · talk 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Eppstein, and reaim the redirect to
  10000000, which should have a line on this number - and does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Generic number. Wikipedia has fallen pretty far if we keep an article that informs the reader "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817." Lots of things similar to this could be said of any large number. Edison 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the comment made by Edison above, I refer to the article on
    the number 9
    . It is a standard opening to a number's article to have something similar to the following: "9 (nine) is the natural number following 8 and preceding 10", thus, the article on 12988816 is completely in line with common Wikipedia practice in stating "12988816 is the natural number following 12988815 and preceding 12988817".
  • With regards to the comment made by CMummert above ("WikiProject Numbers....thought that a specific number needs about three independent notable properties before it merits an article"), it should be noted that the number 12988815 does have at least three independent notable properties, namely the following:

1. It is the number of possible ways of tiling a standard chessboard/checkerboard with 32 dominoes.

2. It is a square number.

3. It is an 8-digit number that has a sequence of three 8s embedded in it, a pattern similar to a repdigit.

In my opinion, point 3 might be stretching the idea a little, but it is a valid point.

ZICO 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZICO, someone just deleted "point 3", the repdigit property. I think this is similar to "tampering with evidence." :) Giftlite 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was a weak point anyway... ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per above. Clearly there are some demonstrable items of interest to this number. It's not randomly plucked out of the ether, it's worthy of note. We have Avogadro's number and many other articles about things that are, to oversimplify for the sake of brevity, "just numbers." For all the reasons pointed out above, I have to believe that this article is genuinely worthy of inclusion. Lemonsawdust 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Sufficiently interesting and distinctive enough to have it's own page. — RJH (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments.
  • So far, there's really only one distinguishing property: this is the number of tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. If we were to relax standards and have articles on every perfect square and every number with a repeated digit, we would have a large number of articles indeed.

The comment "large number of articles" would be an understatement. The number's main known distinguishing property is, indeed, that it is the number of possible tilings of an 8-by-8 board with dominos. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Several people have suggested that there are adequate references for the article (or that a number of authors have found this number interesting enough to study). But where are the references to articles or books about this number specifically? (And not indirectly through some other subject.) If we want an article about the sequence [10] of the number of domino tilings of 2n-by-2n squares, then we want an article about the sequence -- not a single entry in the sequence. Several users above have suggested exactly this.

There is a reference to an article in a book specifically about the number 12988816: The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, revised ed., 1997, ISBN 0-14-026149-4, David Wells, p.182. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that an article. Most entries in that book are just a couple of lines. I don't have the book here so I can't check the 12988816 entry, and some entries are a bit longer, but I doubt it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • That the Pfaffian method can be applied to compute this number -- or numbers in this sequence -- should be mentioned in the article about that method. If the article about 12988816 survives, then this tidbit should be moved there; if the article about 12988816 morphs into an article about the sequence, then it should simply be copied (and kept). Also, that the Pfaffian method is useful is a point in favor of keeping the Pfaffian article, not this one.
  • ZICO said, "However, I had occasion to actually look up "12988816"". What was the occasion? (Specific to 12988816?)

The occasion was when I came across the "domino tiling a chessboard" problem. I saw that the solution to the problem was the number 12988816. I looked up this number in order to see if there was further information on either it or the problem. I made the point earlier that if I looked up the number specifically, then it would be very likely that someone else would do the same. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The comparison to the article on 495 isn't particularly apt. The guidelines say that articles must stand on their own; that there's another article like it isn't a reason to keep the article. (If someone can come up with a wikilink for this guideline, it'd be appreciated. I can't recall it off-hand.) The comparison to Avogadro's number isn't particularly great either; that number finds wide use in physics in chemistry. The number 12988816 doesn't.

My point was not that the article for the number 12988816 was similar to another article, but that it was as useful for reference as the other article (...when should someone specifically look up the number 495?). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Avogadro's number, it is simply a defined number. There is nothing particularly interesting about the number itself but it is, as you say, very useful in the Sciences. Avogadro's number would be different if we used a different system of natural units. My point here is that Avogadro's number warrants (and rightly so) an article not due specifically to anything interesting in the number. The number 12988816 has at least one interesting property in that it is square (the other repunit point is pretty superfluous). ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch, the link is

WP:WAX which expands to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. But I'd argue against using the mysterious abbreviation WAX. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• • If I had to vote, I'd lean towards creating an article on the sequence of which this number is a member (and redirecting this article there) or merging this article into one on tilings (
    polyomino tiling), on the Pfaffian method, or somewhere else appropriate. Lunch 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment A 9x9 board has of course no domino tilings. Jheald 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that an 8x8 board has 12988816 domino tilings seems to be notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but a whole article is too much. So I agree with David Eppstein and Septentrionalis: move the article to
  10000000. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I see no problem with having the information surrounding the number 12988816 added to "Domino tiling", "Polymino tiling" or to "Pfaffian method", but I still think there should be an article devoted to the number 12988816 specifically. ZICO 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is not so much you can write about the number. "12988816 is the number of domino tilings of an 8x8 board" is pretty much everything. Okay, I'll be generous and say that we can add "it is also a square", but that doesn't make an article. The general formula for domino tilings on an n x n board does not belong in the article on 12988816. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable number. The sequence of numbers of domino tilings might be notable. However, there's no reason for an article with this name to exist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, but move content to domino tiling or something more suitable. -- Fropuff 01:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable number. There are infinity numbers, so notability has to be fairly extreme. Someguy1221 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Only because it has many properties that you would not find in many normal integers. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "normal" or "usual" integer? Perhaps you've never heard G. H. Hardy's story about 1729. What standard would you use for inclusion? Lunch 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that this almost the only number of this magnitude in the integer category. I am not qualified to judge whether it is notable, but it should either remain as a number article or be deleted entirely. redirecting to another article seems inappropriate. Peterkingiron 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia not paper. Herostratus 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you have tens of millions of stubby articles on all the integers of this magnitude? What of the guideline "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection"? Lunch 18:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --

Flowsense

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

Contested speedy A7. Neologism, fails

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up while watching Ultimate Frisbee one day. janejellyroll 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NEO. The last line, "The term flowsense was coined by Jake "Frogger" Taylor while watching Harvard RedLine play at the Ultimate Players Association's College Nationals in 2006." says it all, especially since the article was penned by Froggerjake. Neil916 (Talk) 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Sheesh.
   RGTraynor  14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non-notable. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:NEO -- Whpq 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. Just because someone contests a speedy doesn't mean an admin can't speedy-delete an obvious case anyway. This is pretty obvious, IMHO. Realkyhick 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per all the above. Agree it should really be a speedy. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete nonsense and non-notable. Acalamari 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Neil916. --
  T:C 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete Neologism.
  ✎talk 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - see Phobomania also - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its AfD is
  ^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete -
  WP:NEO -- Whpq 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no content. Just a link--Sefringle 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I dare say if we wait a couple of days we'll be able to speedy this as a redirect to a non-existent page since I can't see Phobomania lasting. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, reposted content.
  ✎talk 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable neologism; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete . I wrote that phobomania is invented by the Belgium filosopher Matthias Storme. But on a site where "islamophobia" is put under "discrimination" (or you do mean discrimination of islam opponents by proclaiming they have a phobia) you don't have to expect any tolerance for an other opinion than Islamophielia. Limboot 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the pomposity of
  ^Talk 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non-notable neologism.— JyriL ^talk 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Please see [13] . User Limboot has recreated pages that have already been deleted (Islamophilia). This article should be protected from recreation. --Agha Nader 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted, {{

Kayez

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

Apparently self-authored article about a rapper & music producer, but with no actual recording or production credits listed and no evidence of notability. ShelfSkewed talk 05:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete:, no assertion of notability.
   RGTraynor  14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:MUSIC. A search for the company he founded turns up no useful references, with the first google result being the myspace page which serves as a company website. -- Whpq 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable, and likely COI here as well. Acalamari 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above
  ✎talk 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no sources, but no prejudice to recreation. Abeg92Hokies! 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -

M. M. Robinson High School

M. M. Robinson High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

ordinary high school with 3 well- known alumni, but no other notability DGG 05:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: or to be more precise, one murder victim alumnus (so not much link between the fame and the school / education), and two redlinked "alumni" I have removed because they were probably intended to disparage their subjects (

Fram 10:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete:, fails
   RGTraynor  15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep WP:SCHOOL is not an accepted guideline, so there is no policy statement which says high schools are or are not inherently notable, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. " Pending an accepted guideline for schools, I feel the article should be kept. Most high schools will have multiple independent substantial coverage in newspapers, since they are an important part of the community and a large expense to build and operate, and often get into controversies of administration policy, beyond sports scores and graduation lists. Edison 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Great. Would you like to supply some?
   RGTraynor  19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

An addon. WP:SCHOOL not being a guideline means that school articles have to pass existing guidelines (like

WP:N) or they will be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Fails
  WP:N
  . 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Acceptible, but the athletics and extra-curriculars sections should probably be culled. — RJH (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a significant high school and I have cleaned up the article and added the necessary multiple references to establish notability.
  TerriersFan 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Article has been cleaned up, and looks no worse than all the other high school articles. - BierHerr 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As cleaned up, article makes specific claims of notability, and provides
  verifiable sources to demonstarte notability. Alansohn 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Actually, it doesn't. Of the five links TerriersFan jumped in to add, three are 100% trivial mentions that this was the high school the people in question attended. The fourth is about a karaoke record breaker where the location mentioned was the school. The fifth comes closest, when it praises the high school's children for a charitable drive, but none are really about the school. Are there any sources about the school as
   RGTraynor  13:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Notable alumni. Abeg92Hokies! 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alums, in this context, are ones who accomplish something. a murder victim may be notable, but not because of his high school.DGG 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Holli Durost

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

• Delete per nom - no credible assertion of notability. YechielMan 06:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Actually, there's no assertion of notability at all, credible or otherwise. CSD A7 and so tagged. (I love the particular expression of her vanity in that she wrote the article, but says that one of her songs is "reported to be about" blah, blah, blah.) Mwelch 06:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -

Freshwater State School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. Garrie 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a
  directory - list of all the staff, address, principles, would list the house captains but cannot for security reasons.Garrie 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to the article, it has a principal, students, staff, houses for sports, rules, and sports carnivals. Which virtually all schools have. They didn't mention the school building though. —
  Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 11:11Z
• Delete not notable, and violates
  WP:NOT. Acalamari 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no assertion. Goodnightmush^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  TerriersFan 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albuera Street Primary School may be of some value to this discussion. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:A, not even close. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - while the article theoretically could be fixed up, the
  WP:N issues remain. See the other discussion referred to by Mattinbgn over another Australian primary school - I think we agree somewhat that a primary school (being more of them and their being smaller) have a higher bar for notability than do secondary schools. Orderinchaos 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]