Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 26

Purge server cache

• Keep It was a seperate independent part of the Parague University and diserves a article of its own.--Stone (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Reed General Hospital

• I went ahead and redirected it for you. We need to keep the history for GFDL purposes. --Smashville^BONK! 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that there is sufficient notability established. Davewild (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Saginaw Mall

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

Well, this is somewhat of an interesting ride... Initially, I wanted to G7 this page as I'm pretty much the only significant contributor to it (the IPs are also me, back when I had a nasty habit of not logging in). However, my G7 was denied so I prodded it. The prod was then contested too with the rationale "When ownership of a Mall is decided by a court, there is notability in that". Nonetheless, I feel that this page violates

WP:NOT#NEWS, as the only sources in the article (except for an unreliable Cinema Treasures link) pertain to a recent court battle over the vacant mall. (Also, I'm rather surprised that I can find three news sources on a mall that's been boarded up for ten years, but I can't find much of anything on Fashion Square Mall, a nearby mall which is more than twice as big and still full of stores...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Locally notable eyesore, but not much else to say. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - contester of Prod - The fact that The State is using powers such as Eminent domain to seize control of a property like this is notable. WP:RS have been supplied. Sure we should have a {{update}} template on it to state that the process is 'in process', but thats why we have that template. The notable event surrounding the property just hasnt finished playing out thats all. If the case had been decided already, would this nomination be here? As per the Locally notable argument ... as usual the awnser is "There is no "local" clause in WP:N or WP:RS" Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say anything about "locally notable" at all. Eminent domain is claimed all the time, there's nothing special about this case. Many malls are long abandoned (Dixie Square Mall, anyone?), so that doesn't make it notable either. And the court case is the only evident assertation of notability here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanchardb is using the 'Local' card, that is why I mentioned that. I think your (TenPoundHammer) view is to US-centric, I am not from the USA. I have never heard of my country expropriating an entire property of this size or type in anything other than wartime. So, to non-US residents, this sort of thing is extreamly notable in its unusualness. As for 'Eminent domain is claimed all the time' somehow I dont believe you actually mean that. Any extrordinary power such as that, if overused, would be removed from the government by the people. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough. Decoratrix (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mall was greater than 30k sqm GLA, which is in the realm of a sub-regional mall thus making it sizable during its day. Seems to be sufficient information to justify notability, plus there are ongoing matters relating to it. Worth keeping, but mark for future action to plug some of the information gaps. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Appears notable enough. --Sharkface217 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurcha Records

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

Non-notable record label—not a single notable artist; fails

WP:V. Precious Roy (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy delete A7, company with no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Also fails
  WP:CORP Mr Senseless (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Speedy deletion has already been declined, that's why it's here in AfD. Precious Roy (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Speedy if possible. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very minor fringe record label. If one of their artists makes it big, should not be much trouble to recreate article. Lankiveil (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Delete No notability. --Sharkface217 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

are all the people deadshit losers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.69.60 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep--JForget 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball

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

This whole article is way too detailed for the lack of reference, this article and all the small article comming from it should be deleted or a lest heavely modified. Those article where written by one happy paintball player who wanted to share is experience. that person should read the rule of editing and mainly this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , there is a lot of thing on that article that fit on what wikipedia is not. Reliable sources are needed, someone stating himself and saying that we have to take is "word for it" just show us how unreliable the article is, i doubt they are holder of universal truth and knowledge. Its not because this is an open encyclopedia that you can write everithing you know to share with other, quoting from the rule page "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.". More info is not always good, that's why the article failed its good article nomination, simply because its useless. it should be delete or greatly modified GunSlingerFrag (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) — GunSlingerFrag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. The article needs better refs, and I've tagged it appropriately. I had never heard of "Woodsball" but a google search suggests 311,000 hits, which suggests that there is enough there to support an article here. It needs trimming to a suitable level, but I don't think deletion is the only answer.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a real form of paintball, and it does need better refs, but the term is widely accepted among players. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because it didn't make good article does not mean it should be deleted. As already said, better refs are needed, but that means work needs to be done, not that it should be deleted. Dissentor (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Dissentor. Better refs. A lack of references is no reason for a deletion. --Fromgermany (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article reads fairly well and although it needs work (sources) it seems like a reasonable topic that a comprehensive encyclopedia would include. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An encyclopaedic article needing references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 12:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clovis Towne Center

Clovis Towne Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in California, contains sources but none of them are any good. (One is a Costar listing, and one is -- I swear -- a USGS topo map.) This mall falls way short of "super regional" status; in addition, no sources could easily be found in an online search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable enough in this market. Better referenced than 90 percent of wikipedia articles. Decoratrix (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mall is nothing more than a typical shopping center with a movie theater attached. One of the main anchors, a Sears, moved out years ago. I have no idea why geological information is relevant to an article on a shopping center. Citadel18080 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and ors. NN. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Precedent for malls is a bit iffy, although it seems that they are often kept. --Sharkface217 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. More then 50% of the article is about the land under the mall. While that may be important for an article about the geography of the area, it does not really belong here and it does not make the mall notable. It seems to have been included for the sole purpose of padding the article with references. Also by US standards this mall is not even close to the 800,000 sqft that helps establishes notability. Also, notability is not inherited. So while the theater may be notable for an article of its own, that does not make the mall notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Donaldson

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at

Jay 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• This discussion has been included in
  Jay 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. If he hasn't played first team football for a professional club, he isn't yet notable enough for an article. Looks like he will probably get there in a year or two.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a vote for deletion? –
    Jay 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not sure whether he's played first team football yet. If not, then it's Delete, but I'm trying to find out one way or another.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the NUFC website, he isn't even in the senior squad yet, so is not sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as per User:Number 57 - fchd (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No first team games yet, recreate when he's played for Newcastle Utd (or whoever). Nick mallory (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nom makes the common error of presuming that one must play at the highest professional level of a sport in order to satisfy
   RGTraynor  04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - has played in 9 matches for England Under 19s. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - this user does not seem to understand the notability criteria for footballers. Playing youth international football does not qualify someone as notable. –
    Jay 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although numerically the keep !votes are equal in number to the deletes, the criteria cited by the deletes was per policy/ guideline, and that of the keeps was not. So it was necessary to give much higher weighting to the deletes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villains of Ace Lightning

Villains of Ace Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was originally named

WP:PLOT, and fancruft. Failed PROD (deprodded during renamed). Collectonian (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete nothing more then a original research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the original article, but do not see the real proper reason for proposal for deletion. There is another article -
  Main Characters of Ace Lightning which I could merge the villains article to. This article should nevertheless remain as it is. Only about three people have created it and edited, and I first created it to help boost the acknowledgement of the topic at hand. I am afraid I know very little about the rules of Wikipedia, other then no vandilism, plagarism and flame wars are forbidden, so I just help edit where I can to try and improve articles and Wikipedia. My suggestion for this article is to leave it as it is, or to merge it with another article. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The purpose of Wikipedia after all is to provide knowledge and this information is all factual and one of the few places it can be found. I agree it's hard to verify and I know how much stock wiki puts in that but it's information from a pretty obscure show. Isn't the purpose of a place of knowledge to bring obscure things out of the shadows so new people can learn about them? Gladrius (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read policy and actually know what the purpose of wikipedia is before you make statements like this. This article fails every single core policy of wikipedia.Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  Why not? Many other shows, some with much less notability, have lists of villains. Why not this one? --Sharkface217 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This isn't a list of villains, its a list of minor villains. The creator tried to rename it to make it seem more notable than it is. All of the major villains of the series currently have their own articles linked to directly from the main Ace Lightning page.Collectonian (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the fictional "minor" villains in the article are main villains, as at least several of them appear on a daily basis in each episode, in particular the one known as Dirty Rat. I put them together in one article as I thought it would be rather stupid making short articles about them all, ending up as stubs. What would you suggest to keep this article? Evilgidgit (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily appearance doesn't necessarily make the notable or even main villains, particular a main villains henchmen. Do they all contribute significantly to the overall story? Those that do could be merged into the List of Ace Lightning characters article while the rest need no more mention than what they get in the currently missing episode list and summaries. Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first five or so all contribute to the overall story, as most of them have had their own main roles in the series. The characters Dirty Rat started a rebellion briefly at the end of the first season with the other villains against the main antafonist. Anvil often is used as a growing force of strength against the main heroes, Pigface is the most recurring villain after the main villains to combat the heroes, Googler was introduced in Episode 7 and has an untold history with the main hero, and Rotgut is mostly used for comedy but tries to follow a human character around to make him a zombie. The character Fred is the transportation for Season 2's villain and appears with him in every episode. As for the others, I suppose they are not entirely notable since two never made it into the series, and one only is featured in the video game adaption. If this article is going to be deleted, regardless of opinions, it would be best to move the notable villains into the character list. The ones who are not notable are included in the main article of Ace Lightning anyway. Happy New Year by the way. Evilgidgit (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced personal commentary.
  talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Some fair points on both sides of the discussion.--

talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Nathan Porritt

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt
• Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt (1st nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nathan Porritt (3rd nomination)

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at

Jay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• This discussion has been included in
  Jay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep The section on footballers at

talk) 20:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that the policy you refer to has been rejected by the community, and therefore is null and void. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question - would ANY/ALL players on a professional sports team inherently be notable? (I ask because I've seen some that are questionable but are pro...)
• Delete Appearances in youth competitions don't merit a place. He has to make first team appearances for a major club. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Over three hundred unique hits on Google UK. 158 hits on UK Google News, including cites from the Telegraph and the BBC. Regardless of the merits of his resume as a soccer player, he seems to clear the
   RGTraynor  04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - Perhaps in the future, but "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" and thus putting a page in now is a tad premature. If there are 158+ links/references, then userfying this article, expanding it with references, and then recreating it in a way that solidly references it to show notability would probably be the best option. This is borderline, though, I will give it that and I could see it legitimately falling either way. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I would say that by a very broad definition of "highest levels of amateur sport" allow Porritt to qualify as per Wikipedia:BIO... meanwhile, Google turns up a few writings about the guy, like [2] and [3] Watchsmart (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The two factors combined make it worth keeping for now, if he disappears in 3 years time that may be the time to get rid of it, however for now there is an argument for keeping the article. Ashl (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Vaisey

Non-notable/hoax article. Page was created by person in question (User:Vaz21. Vaisey's nickname is listed as "Vaz", of the few Google hits that aren't Wikipedia mirrors is a deviantArt account under the username "Vazie", with the full name "Ben Vaisey"). I cannot find any mention of the person on the websites on any of the clubs he supposedly plays for or has played for, and there are little to no Google results for his name in conjunction with these clubs that aren't WP mirrors (Ben Vaisey + Nashville Metros, +Norwich, +Llanelli, +Leeds (see here), +Wrexham). Page has also been deleted in various guises twice in the past, and the only reason why I didn't put this up for speedy was because a prod was removed in the past. Note, Ryanovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to delete this page earlier in the year, and created this page, but seemed to have not followed through with all the steps. As it was not a complete AfD nomination, I decided to overwrite this page rather than create a 2nd nomination page. The previous version of the page can be found here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable and no sources. Decoratrix (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Assuming the text is true, and this would require some sort of sourcing, even something as simple as a lineup listing from a team website. I tagged the article {{unreferenced}} as well and would, if I could remember the tag nomenclature, tag it with the "this reads like a resume/VO/biography". The edit history does show it was created by the Vaz, but the vast majority of edits are not (though many are IP). VigilancePrime (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article with {{

likeresume}}. With regards to a listing of players, the Nashville Metros official website does not list him in their roster of players, despite him allegedly scoring more than a goal every two games. It could be argued that this is because he "has" recently been loaned to Wrexham, and thus been removed from the roster, though the Wrexham site also does not mention the player. There are also no Google News results for the player's name, which a real player - who had actually signed for Wrexham, and had actual interest expressed in him by Notts County and Grays Athletic, and had actually been tearing up his league - would have. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it appears to be a hoax unless some evidence is provided for any of the claims made here. JavaTenor (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax article. –
  Jay 11:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep without a clear consensus. I am

basic criteria

.

WP:COI issues are not motive to keep or delete this article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

John Leach (writer)

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

I am the subject of this article and in view of a dispute that has arisen on the talk page and in the content of the article, I believe it is right that the Wikipedia membership should be asked to reach a consensus. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part and the decision should rest with the wider membership. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure what the rationale for this nomination is. Reading the talk page, it appears that Mr Leach (BlackJack, the nominator) feels that he passes
  stare decisis does not apply to Wikpedia, and that, even if this AfD results in a "Keep", there's no restriction on the article being re-nominated immediately. If not exactly a bad-faith nomination, it's certainly out-of-process - perhaps the best thing to do is close _this_ AfD, and wait until one of Mr Leach's detractors raises a genuine objection to his notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete. There are some potential claims to notability here, but I don't see how we can necessarily document them using independent sources (i.e. not the organization that publishes him). Procedurally BlackJack is allowing this notability concern to see the light of day. I think it's a legitimate beef, although there are some accusations of bad faith (see Talk), but if the original article doesn't meet our standards anyone should be allowed to object. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Entirely agree with your last point. I would point out there has been no bad faith unless the minor details input by
  User:GeorgeWilliams contravene: he and BlackJack are known to be personal friends but it seems that all George did was correct the date of birth and a few other minor points. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is correct. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Following Tevildo, I am quite happy to question this fellow's notability. There are zero
   RGTraynor  04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I see what you mean about "peacock terms" and I have removed words like "significant" and "major contribution" to try and make it NPOV. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: I commend to you
       RGTraynor  14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Fair enough. I think a bit of work is needed. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've written to both your talk pages, as you should have noticed, but can you two please leave the article alone now for the duration of the AfD as constant chopping and changing will confuse other readers. The article has been pared down to a stub and has got the necessary references, etc. with any remotely POV words removed. As it is a stub and therefore, by definition, an undeveloped article can we please just leave it at that for now and not try to transform it into the greatest stub ever written? Please. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Talk page discussion not very relevant here. Notable enough. Certainly lots more notable and substantive than thousands of wannabe rock stars, cartoon characters and quasi athletes that are uncontested on wikipedia. Decoratrix (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had hoped not to intervene, but “Albert’s” whitewash job won’t wash with me. I don't underestimate Jack's many, often maverick, contributions to WP (he is one of the great fiddlers in terms of moving stuff around, but has also contributed a lot of very good material about early cricket). And his ghostly presence is still evident in many articles, though he himself has been absent for a while. But I worry that, when I generate a short random list of WP articles that mention his internet work From Lads to Lord's, nine out of 10 "references" or "external links" seem to have been inserted by him. I have read the review of this work in the ACS journal (I have also read some of the book in question). The review is not particularly favourable: that doesn’t bother me, but the authors of other monographs or books reviewed by the ACS don’t, in most cases, seem to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, so I’m not clear why this one should. And the CZ cricket editor accolade? Well, there does seem so far to have been only one substantive contributor to CZ's cricket articles, so I’m not surprised that he is “the editor” there. Over the past few months, there have been several instances where an external dispute between Jack and the ACS has spilled over into the pages of Wikipedia: this in my view does neither side any favours, nor the Wikipedia project. I suspect this is but the latest manifestation of this dispute. I wish Jack would get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia: he has a lot to offer, and this is just a side-show. Johnlp (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For very good personal reasons, I decided to drop the BlackJack name several weeks ago and I have used two different names since then (Maverick and Ghost) and only since then. The only other name I have used was my own when I first joined. I am not GeorgeWilliams (a personal friend who joined WP when I did) and I am not AlbertMW (whom I met via WP because of our shared interests). I decided to reutilise the BlackJack name because it is associated with the "dispute" you speak of and the "latest manifestation" is a personal attack via this article. If you check the contribs of my Ghost username, you may perceive that I have been trying very hard to "get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia". But if certain people will not let sleeping dogs lie, what can I do? I suggest you look at the article's recent history and talk page and also at User talk:Richard Daft. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per
  WP:BIO. Seems notable enough, if only just. --Sharkface217 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part... I don't think that this makes sense, as members of these projects are surely most likely to have expertise in these fields, and hence best qualified to judge whether Mr Leach is notable. However I will respect it and not give an opinion on Keep v Delete. JH (talk page) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Having said that.... Well, there are two aspects to this:
  GeorgeWilliams (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment as a cricket WikiProject member, I'll respect BlackJack's wishes and not give an opinion, but I point out the obvious, that users' personal opinions of BlackJack the editor on Wikipedia are irrelevant to the opinion as to whether or not this article passes
  WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that he fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mackay Steven

Gary Mackay Steven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at

Jay 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• This discussion has been included in
  Jay 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment if he hasn't actually played I might vote to delete myself. I don't follow soccer. But 1) Liverpool is a notable team 2) his signing was important enough to warrant a reported six figure transfer to the Scottish team and 3) be reported by the BBC. He sure seemed like a noteworthy player, at any rate.
  talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm confused. Wasn't he already with
    talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, but he never made an appearance for Ross County. –
      Jay 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Weak delete Until such time as he plays a game, per
  WP:BIO. Don't worry, Shawn, if you're unsure then the right thing to do is to create the article and let others decide. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks. I didn't create the article -- I wouldn't presume to do so on a sport I know so little about! -- but did remove the PROD.
    talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Until he plays for a major team. Nick mallory (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and as former prodder. Punkmorten (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, at least not yet BanRay 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is not encyclopedic and unmaintainable. Davewild (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place names with English meanings

Place names with English meanings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article's creator said "I am not entirely sure that this is either notable or encyclopedic." After observing the article for a while, I have concluded that it is neither. The article's stated premise is that it consists of "place names which look or sound like English words, but have no etymological connection to them," but in fact (1) very few of the place names are supported by references that support this etymology assertion (in fact, few listed names are supported by references and many of the blue internal links do not point to Wikipedia articles for these "places"); (2) many of these place names actually do have etymological connection with English words (for example, see the articles about Gas, Kansas and the village of Horseheads, New York); (3) I believe that in many instances, there is no reliably sourced information available on the origin of these names; (4) the principal sources cited in the article are children's books (not confidence-inspiring); and (5) many of the entries that get added to the list are nothing more than place names that reminded somebody of a "dirty" word of some sort. With due respect to the creator(s), I do not think this article adds value to the encyclopedia. Orlady (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. I entirely agree with your feelings about this material. As I explained on the talk page when I created it, the justification for this article is simply to keep this second-rate stuff in one place and out of other articles. Of course if we can get a Wiki-wide consensus just not to include this anywhere, I would be happier still. But if the choice is between having this article and having cheap jokes in an article on a mountain because its name (Wank) is so hilarious to the puerile, I say let them have this playground. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's persuasive arguments. I disagree that the puerile will be attracted to this article rather than the places' individual articles. Deor (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A qualified Keep. While I agree that this collection of place names is of marginal value to the Wikipedia, and perhaps only good for a chuckle, the introduction to the article states that "The collecting of place names with such unetymological meanings, especially when the meanings are potentially amusing, has become an element of popular Anglophone culture" and I believe there is some merit in that. Pasquale (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'm glad both that Orlady nominated it and that Pasquale voted a keep. Because it was nominated, more people will see this than otherwise might have, and because someone voted keep, it won't be taken down immediately. Lists like this are entertaining, and would make an interesting feature for a newspaper, but not suitable to become a permanent part of an encyclopedia. In that spirit, the eventual delete should not be taken as a put-down. Because of the rules in WP:NOT, we're only saying that it can't stay forever. Mandsford (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm also pleased to see this discussion occur. Having defended -- and sometimes managed to help rescue -- more than a few AfD candidates, including several lists, I know that an AfD discussion can turn out to be a positive thing. :-) --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. (edit conflict)I think one of the reasons this article is in bad shape is because it's mainly written by anons and newcomers. Since there are so many, it's hard to check for accuracy, and another big problem is that some of the places that have no articles are actually not notable at all, considering they may be a single building, if you check Google Maps. Since there are so many, it would be hard to keep track of all of them, and also hard to controll and add any place names that have been missed. Remember, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It is a process, not nessecarily a finished work. Some of our articles, most of them in fact, are just in their beginning stages. Is that a reason to delete them? No, but we need someone experienced to work on it, otherwise it will slowly rot away. Some articles are almost never monitored. In fact, before I started editting and looking through
  U) 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No encyclopedic value. Really, what is the point of saying "There's a town called Needham, which, heh, sounds a bit like 'Need Ham'". You may as well have a List of people with funny-sounding names. Marasmusine (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, see List of unusual personal names. That list is not supposed to include people whose names merely sound funny, but those types of names do get added with unfortunate regularity. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Like I said, if we discover ones that don't belong, we could just
  U) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Suggestion. See
  U) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Update. There, now is that a bit better? Now what do we need? Footnotes? Individual references? Articles for some of the more notable place names? All this can be completed if we are given the right amount of time. Remember, this can be worked on, and we do have a bunch of related articles. Thanks. ~
  U) 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per the nominator but with due respect and regrets. Whether or not any particular town name belongs on this list will always be a judgment call, and hard to maintain to any standard, without adding much value to the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weeke-upon-Dellette, Nottintoshire, UK With all due respect to all effort put to this article, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for this; Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and this is the kind of topic that lends itself wonderfully for OR - not only in form of random additions from random passers-by, but in a form that is somewhat redundant with "professionally" compiled sources. I'm sure someone has done this before; I'm not sure if we can just slap a list here and let it grow... It's a giant big shame, of course, because the topic is both fascinating and amusing. Hmm - let's form a "compile fascinating factoids" group in Wikiversity, or whatever? (and by the way, did you know that "Napa" is Finnish for "navel" or "pole"? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what would be gained or in what way Wikipedia would be improved by the deletion of this article. Notions of what is 'proper' in an encyclopaedia do change over time. While this article is odd, it does have a serious side which sheds some light on the processes of assigning names to places. Read Accident for example. I would 'vote' to retain. --80.229.61.44 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified American Football

Simplified American Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be an essay or an instruction book that was 'forked' from the American Football page after a disagreement. I put a prod on the page that was contested so, moving it here for discussion. Narson (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Narson (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Mr Senseless (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Technically we do have Category:Introductions, which this could be a version of. I'm not sure that American football is really so complicated (contra particle physics) that we need a for-dummies version of our article, but I think it's at least worth considering. This is nowhere near a comprehensive article, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scally

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Scally
• Articles for deletion/Scally (2nd nomination)

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

Article has been tagged for original research concerns for several months. No proper reliable inline referencing. Makes several sweeping unverified claims. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems little chance of this getting deleted and for good reason. If the article is somehow deficient, it needs fixing, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several reliable sources say this is basically identical to chav, just a local variation in terminology. I think we need some strong sourcing for the differentiation, else merge. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is certainly not
  Bling was from Ratners not ebay. Mike33 - t@lk 08:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If this is going to be about regional terminology or actual distinct groups and this is a delete then we seriously have to consider deleting Ned (Scottish) which is less sourced than Scally and is basically identical to chav. Mike33 - t@lk 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article isn't verified, but is verifiable.
  talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per Michig. There may be a lack of sources, but the ones that are provided may be reliable, and verifiable should come with that. I don't see a serious problem with original research, maybe just stick {{cleanup-afd}} on the page, and see what happens. Rt. 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In years to come, what happened in Liverpool in the 1970's will be seen as important to the 'evolution'- if I can call it that - of this working class / underclass. Therefore a page on it is important, and people like it. Scally and Chav are are different descriptions for different things - with a different history. This has all been debated before. The page is fine and has more references than a lot of other wikipedia pages.--Johncollinswork (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh

Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

This appears to be a POV fork with no discernible use. It duplicates information that could either be handled on

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or in a mention on Nagorno-Karabakh - and, in fact, is already handled in the first two, and possibly the third. There is no mergable information that I see. I only envision this article creating strife and supplying nothing in return. If we have this, why not one for all the other areas of Azerbaijan? Lower Karabakh, perhaps? The Azeri point of view is that the NKR doesn't exist, yet this article seems to give that area a special status. (note that for the time being on Wikipedia, "Nagorno-Karabakh", without the word 'Republic', appears to always mean the region. In this case, if it meant the republic, that would be a vastly unjustifiable title, as it would be saying Azerbaijan dictates the divisions of another country.) Golbez (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per nom. Also everything that could be described about this topic is already very nicely done in
  Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Azeri administrative division of Nagorno-Karabakh deserves its own article as a recognized sovereignty as much if not more than unrecognized and illegitimate "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic".
  talk) 07:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom. No need for a separate article for something that is essentially useless and exists only on some dusty piece of paper.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The raions/districts indicated in the article are recognized territory of Azerbaijan. They should be available for information to the readers as well. Ehud (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Needs further work. Grandmaster (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article represents the de jure situation. If anything, this is the article that should be kept. It does require improvement though. Parishan (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions also describes the de jure situation and is very nicely written and doesn't look like it needs expanding. If it does, by all means expand it. Another article on this topic is not necessary and is a POV fork. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Per nom.
  Ad nauseum arguments about the NKR's "illegal" status have become stale.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep with sadness. Note that probably as much could be written about these divisions as about the NKR itself, so saying "cannot be expanded" is fairly false. -
  · 14:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment But it is still a FORK, you have forgotten that Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article exist also, 4 articles about the same thing is excessive. There already was three articles when Grandmaster created this fork and Grandmaster was free to work on the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article insteed of creating another one. What he created is a non-existing entity since past officially part of Azerbaijan which should be covered in the the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article in a section which covers what followed, there is only the De facto republic. So any justification one can give won't change the fact that as a FORK this article should go, it is according to the policies and guidelines and we should vote according to them. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If
    Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions isn't the appropriate place to expand upon this topic, it can be expanded in the articles for Khojali, Khojavend, Kalbajar, Khojavend, Goranboy, and Shusha. The problem with this article is that there is no longer a Nagorno-Karabakh according to the Azerbaijani government so why would there be an article on Azerbiajani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There's Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Karabakh in general in Azerbaijan, the region just does not have an autonomy. Grandmaster (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Nagorno-Karabakh does not exist as an administrative entity according to the Azerbaijani Government. Hence there shouldn't be an article on Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pocopocopocopoco, actually, I think you're misunderstanding the term Nagorno-Karabakh. "Nagorno-Karabakh" in translation from Russian means Mountainous Karabakh. Azeris and previously Soviets have and are dividing the Karabakh region into Upper (Mountainous) and Lower (Lowland) Karabakh. The wording of the upper Karabakh is sometimes represented by Nagorno-, Nagorny-, Mountanous, Upper (sorry, don't remember the Azeri transliteration), etc. Hence, when some people refer to the region as Nagorno-Karabakh, they don't necessarily refer to NKAO (Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast) which as you said, does not exist. They mean the upper part of Karabakh. Moreover, since the region has existed in international media and literature as Nagorno-Karabakh, Azeris have refrained from using the term "Upper Karabakh" so that there is one concrete terminology. Ehud (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of that but it's good that you posted it. As per the information you provided, Nagorno-Karabakh is considered a region only and not an administrative entity according to the Azerbaijani Government. Hence there shouldn't be an article on Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the Azerbaijani Government, Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in the same way the Rocky Mountains are a region. Having an article on the US administrative divisions of the Rocky Mountains would be as equally meaningless. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, but the United States is not in a frozen conflict over internationally recognized US territory of Rocky Mountains with either Canada or Mexico. Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh/Upper Karabakh)region is an internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory and as long as we have articles on de facto Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenian control, we should also have the above article available to the readers.Ehud (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The official status is already mentioned in
                Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Nagorno-Karabakh. It makes no sense to have this article just to underline this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • And by the same token, the page
                  Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which was self-proclaimed on the territory of Azerbaijan. Hence, the article on the former could be added as a section of the latter. Ehud (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • So you want to get rid of the entire
                    Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • That would make sense to have
                      Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh Ehud (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
• Merge I'm changing my vote. This article is a FORK of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast VartanM (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If one wanted to look at most of the maps published in these days, s/he would not find boundaries of Nagorno-Karabakh, despite the fact that the geography and terminology itself has not disappeared. After 1993, Azerbaijani authorities have not renamed the Soviet era names of regions composing NK, but have divided its administrative regions among other neighbouring regions. Therefore, it is important to keep this information here. Another option would be keep it inside
  NKAO or Nagorno-Karabakh articles, but rather under its own/current title. Article or sub-article can be expanded with more information, such as when and under what decrees these administrative were divided, be it only legally and on the map. --Aynabend (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Wouldn't the article on the
    NKAO be the most appropriate place to put this information including how the NKAO was divided and the decrees on how the NKAO was divided? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was delete --JForget 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Walker

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

Non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think every individual tsunami victim is notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Kristian Walker actually does have mention in a BBC Article, however while this story is interesting, I don't think that it makes him particularly notable. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : while tragic that this individual was killed, so were approx. 250,000 other people; hence, no assertion of notability per
  WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Alexander Wilson

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

Entire article seems to fail

no original research, especially with the authors name at the top! The only substantive changes have been made by the author. Half of the article is about various colleges, rather than the person, and this also applies to the references cited. CultureDrone (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep NPOV issues, needs to be severely cleaned up but it doesn't need to be outright deleted yet. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability suggested. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, accomplished broadcaster and now chef, but no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no mention of particular notability and there doesn't seem to be an effort to unorphan the article.Lazulilasher (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : no assertion of notability per
  WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to

Byron, Ontario, as redirects are cheap and the content has already been merged there is little harm in just keeping as a redirect. I will protect the redirect if anyone brings repeated recreations to my attention. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Byron Somerset Public School

Byron Somerset Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Newly built middle school. Nothing special about it. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school is relevant to the ever-growing cummunity of houses surrounding it. Since the early 1990s, it has been a cummunity center as well as a school. Keep. LondonOnEric-^Me•MyEars

You might want to take a look at WP:SCHOOL. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet any of the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and no assertion of notability per
  WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Merge to

talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to district: Contrary to TerriersFan there is no "established precedent" for this: it's been done, but keeping or deleting is more common. But I think it's a good solution as it has the potential to keep information, keep it together, and make a single good article rather than a collection of permanent stubs. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Rather than engage in a kind of deletion warfare, we should promote article development for the good of Wikipedia and to encourage good editors. This article was nominated for deletion precisely one minute after it was created. The nominator doesn't appear to have had any way of knowing how notable it might be. For this particular article, I think we should be extra prudent and wait months before even considering deleting or redirecting it. Before ultimately deciding whether it should go or stay, I'd like to see whether or not the creator of the article or other editors can add citations to multiple, independent, reliable sources. Perhaps the nominator can explain to the rest of us how this article came to be nominated for deletion so fast.
  talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is hardly notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge>Delete to Thames Valley District School Board per de facto guideline that seems to be gaining momentum at WP:SCHOOL. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)!vote changed per Vegaswikian JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would not have objected to a merge, but there is nothing to merge. Not even a year it was opened in. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wilson (Fatal Fury)

Bob Wilson (Fatal Fury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Non-notable fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Article is mostly a list of unsourced trivia. Pagrashtak 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete – game character no notability on own. At best merge into game's article after a complete rewrite. Shoessss |  Chat  17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non notable and poor references. Decoratrix (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete character is not on the level of comparable characters Kyo Kusanagi or Terry Bogard in terms of video game industry notability. JuJube (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into List of Fatal Fury Characters --Badger Drink (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, if anyone wants to create a redirect from the properly capitalised title they can do so. Davewild (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little saigon in san jose

Little saigon in san jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps appropriate for wikinews? The very model of a minor general (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a news article. WP isn't the place to for news articles. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Little Saigon#San Jose, where the issue is mentioned. Article should be renamed in Title Case after AfD. Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this is already covered in Little Saigon#San Jose and this article is simply a regurgitation of what's there Doc Strange (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Until completely re-written in a
  WP:NPOV manner than redirect as Doc and Alanshon pointed out or just delete since it is already covered. Shoessss |  Chat  17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not an encyclopaedic topic and part of it isn't even in English! Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  San Jose Mercury News and not much else) to really warrant a separate article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge / redirect to Little Saigon#San Jose, after renaming in Title Case, all per Alansohn above. --Lockley (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with cheers for improving the article.--

talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

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

)

Article does not assert context for notability per

WP:N. Article reads like an advert, and was obviously written by somone connected to the subject. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep – I say, based on the articles shown in Google News as posted here; [4]. In addition, there were more than just a few hits in Google Scholar as posted here, [5], which makes for a pretty strong keep argument. Happy New Year. Shoessss |  Chat  17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark It seems mainly to be a copy and paste from the RMBO website, eg the education section is from www.rmbo.org/education. The words 'we' and 'our' are prominent throughout.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - If that is the case, Tag it for copyright violation. However, I believe that the organization itself still deserves an entry in Wikipedia. If necessary I'll start the piece myself and get some help in cleaning it up. You want to volunteer :-). In the mean time,I will check it later tonight and see what is going on. Thanks for your input Shoessss |  Chat  20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - significant media coverage
  talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuba

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

)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary article, and yet it creeps me out :(.^Mitch32^contribs 15:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  94 15:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There are plenty of equivalent slang terms for this in English. No need to have an article for a slang term in a language whuch by itself barely passes the test of notability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat off-topic, but why not try actually reading Meitei_language and tell me whether you think, with all the scholarly papers there and the millions of speakers it has, it's "a language whuch by itself barely passes the test of notability" cab (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:DICT. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – At this point it is only a term in the
  Wikitionary not in Wikipedia. Shoessss |  Chat  18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A word's being English or not has nothing to do with whether it has gotten non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (in English, a language of the country it originates from, or a third language) or whether the concept it describes is encyclopedic or not. cab (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place for NN slang terms. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:DICT. cab (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There is nothing interesting or encyclopedic about a foreign language slang that has no notability in english usage. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a dictionary definition, and
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. one would really want some notability for it to be here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Rajput

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

Visual effects artist on some big films. Notability however is not inherited. Also SPA and likely COI issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost certian COI, also spam.
  94 15:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Vanity piece. Shoessss |  Chat  18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per Stormtracker. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is indeed into the film industry and has worked in notable films. However, he is just another member of the team with no significant achievement of his own to justify his inclusion -
  Rustam
  11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth rodford

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

While the team itself is notable, I am not sure if she is notable just for being on said team.

Sandbox) 15:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Nn rower, fails
  94 15:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Seems to have gained notability from reliable and verifiable sources as shown here; [6] in Google News. Shoessss |  Chat  18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Stormtracker. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  94. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Chippingford-Watson

Hugh Chippingford-Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. There are no google hits for the subject, the content is implausible, and the image is of Ralph Thoresby (I tagged the image for speedy 12+ hours ago, it may disappear by the end of this debate). Contested prod. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I want to think this is a funny joke, but most of it is just.... odd. I like the portrait of Thoresby, though. I've always wondered why aren't hoaxes subject to speedy deletion....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. The article is
  unverifiable at the very least. The edit history shows that the article started out as a bio of Thoresby and was progressively replaced by nonsense. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Shoessss |  Chat  18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Before deleting this please allow me to e-mail a link to the article to a colleague who teaches ballet at Barnard College and The New School and who is an expert pointe shoe fitter:
  • The portion about the ballet shoes just might be true though the date is very early.
  • The absence of Google hits doesn't necessarily prove much in the case of people who predate the WWW and who toiled in obscure fields (and pointe shoes are obscure except to those who wear them.)
  • As The Fat Man Who Never Came Back writes, it may not be a hoax, it may be just odd, and if being odd were the criterion for deletion of articles from Wikipedia more than half of all articles would have to go.
  • But the bit about Coco Pops does make one suspicious. Robert Greer (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoax:
      • Though I have not yet heard back from Professor Carpenter, I pronounce this a hoax derived from the article for Ralph Thoresby.
      • Go to the history for Hugh Chippingford-Watson and compare the earliest version with the article for Ralph Thoresby.
      • The sixth revision includes the name of his wife, Anne-Marie Dufresne, the purported ballerina.
      • There are a number of living Anne-Marie Dufresnes but none that I can find in any dance reference.
      • If one clicks on Compare selected revision and toggles through the revisions via newer its true nature becomes apparent.

Robert Greer (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. House elf named Dolby (I deleted that as nonsense)? Yeah, right. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Camp

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

Contested prod. Fails notability - nothing in the article even asserts notability, and there are no sources other than the camp's own website

talk) 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Seems to be a genuine and worthy activity, but not, in the
  WP:N sense, notable. Springnuts (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC). Also NB Speedy tag removed by IP address. Springnuts (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. NN. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisment and not notable. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  123 review me 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – As “Spam”. In addition, no News articles found regarding the camp other than promotional. Shoessss |  Chat  18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a brochure for the summer camp. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Shachiku

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

Japanese neologism. No indication whatsoever that the term found its way into the English language. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Does this count as a
  WP:DICTDEF? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No references provided to show the word is in use. The top few Google hits are not obviously relevant. Delete unless references are added. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can add more info on where it came from and why it's notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Actually have found the word with an explanation of the meaning as shown here; [7]. But that is the problem…it is only a word that would be more suited to
  Wikitionary, and even here I would question its inclusion, than Wikipedia. Shoessss |  Chat  18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Contra nom, a word's being in the English language or not has nothing to do with notability. However, this word itself doesn't seem to be worth an article, and I don't see any evidence that it could be expanded beyond a
  dictionary definition. The jawiki page ja:社畜 is just as bad as this one, and Google search in Japanese shows plenty of hits [8], but no actual coverage jumps out at the eye. All this suggests it's a concept that would be better covered as part of an article at a descriptive title like Corporate culture in Japan or something. cab (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. No use just tossing out a perfectly good dicdef when it can just be moved to the correct site. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schreiber

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

Game character. Not

WP:IN-U. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No secondary sources to establish notability, no out-of-universe information to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The newspaper articles within the games are neither here nor there. The developers did attribute them to one name, who happens to turn up in Silent Hill 4 as a character, but going into more detail than that is wading through obscura. His role in SH4 is to act as narrator for one cut-scene to explain away what's going on - hardly a major character who needs an article.
  List of Silent Hill characters has him covered already in about as much depth as he warrants. Someone another (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No references or notability. Article seems to original research.
  talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Not enough real world information exists. User:Krator (t c) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Agents: Jack Warrior

It would appear that this is a a hoax, but the tag keeps being removed. There is no evidence or citations to suggest this game exists. Closedmouth (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating:
  • The Agents: The Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
  • Smokey (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Horace (The Agents) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Smokey & Horace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the same reasons --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Nothing relevant shows up in Google, no mention on the website or at game sites. Hoax. Xymmax (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes. Closing admin, be sure to check the "what links here" before deleting as they have been seeded in valid articles. --Alfadog (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes, and block the editor from creating new ones. (See also: sockpuppet case.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes. The Agents is certainly a hoax, as it proclaims to feature Andy Dick and this role is not listed in his imdb page where it would be if this was real. I agreee with Shunpiker on how we should deal with the user who keeps making these pages Doc Strange (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did a bit of searching before adding Hoax tags to several of these after a mention of the supposed 1992 The Agents movie was placed in an actor's article; nothing found on Google or IMDB. AUTiger » talk 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolute bollocks. Someone another (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Knowles

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

Completely unnotable entry.This entry does not meet any of the Wikipedia requirements for a Biographical entry.

talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, vanitisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no showing of notability. Article created by User:Knowles.graham, only edited one other article. Xymmax (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speddy Delete as A7 [9]. Shoessss |  Chat  18:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat

Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a man who apparantly manages a company that manufactures notebook covers in Peru. The only google hits on his name are those that are copied from either this page or

List of Peruvian Jews is in itself a pretty controversial article. It was a composit of several lists that were deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews. The main list itself remained undeleted after its deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February. The result was a sort of crazy attempt to find more Peruvian Jews that brought us to, believe it or not, things such as List of Jewish Peruvian astronomer and the various articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Peruvian activists

.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, this Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat is a non-noteable guy whose article is on wikipedia for the sole reason of providing a few good links on

List of Peruvian Jews. Descendall (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, a joke screams to be made linking "notebook cover manufacturer" with "notability", but it's late here and I can't come up with something off the bat. What is boils down to is that this guy is essentially a non-notable businessman, and being Peruvian or Jewish isn't going to make him any more notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The idea that one can be notable for being part of an incredibly obscure subset of categories is also jokeworthy. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no reliable sources to establish his notability. Xymmax (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A7. Shoessss |  Chat  19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Merge with Michael_Jackson. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's finances

Michael Jackson's finances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Yes, Michael Jackson has money problems, but is this one man's financial situation such an important part of human knowledge it merits its own article? This page serves no encyclopedic purpose, and is a minefield of

BLP-questionable content, along with several copyvios in its edit history. I'd suggest a merge, but everything here is either unimportant or already covered in the main article. szyslak 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, agree that there is
  WP:BLP issues with this article. The man is famous for being a musician and possibly a kiddy-fiddler, not for being a financial whiz. Agree wholeheartedly that this is tabloidy trash that has no place in Wikipedia. Lankiveil (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete, there is no good reason why this should exist as a standalone article except as a POV farm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Michael Jackson Doc Strange (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. I consider myself to be a fairly strict interpreter of the
  WP:BLP guidelines, but this article really isn't so bad on that score. The negative assertions are properly referenced, and have been widely reported. MJ is a top-tier public figure, so there's much less concern than there would be about having a similiar story with a less notable person. Accordingly, I don't think deletion is required. Still, in order to place events in a proper context and avoid undue weight, I would include the material with the main article. Xymmax (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into Michael Jackson. Seems to be an important topic for the main article to cover, but not important enough for its own article. It's properly referenced so that isn't a problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. As a separate article, it fails
  WP:BLP. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge back to
  reliably sourced material here, but not enough for a separate article. *** Crotalus *** 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge - per above. Shoessss |  Chat  19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Michael Jackson article. However, it should be read carefully - old versions had a LOT of useful information no longer there. Michael Jackson fans are the worst on the planet for modifying Wikipedia articles to suit their agendas but do it in a more subtle way than a 'vandal'. I'm on a crusade to attempt to put everything in a neutral perspective and this article's one that I know will come under fire very quickly and has done already. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge per above discussion. Do not keep this messy POV fork. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge-as per everyone else. It should be merged with the Micheal Jackson page, for it has little amount of merit and plus it won't really make that page bigger than it is. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Doesn't deserve it's own entry. Phantomwiki (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a re-write is necessary before a merge; this thing is so POV! The comments aren't, but a lot of negative details have been left out on the grounds that we can't trust the tabloid press. I agree, but you can't just pretend they didn't say it. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a POV fork. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a POV fork of

fringe view that low temperature nuclear fusion is a reality. This article appears to serve mainly to undermine the credibility of the panel, which panel has no particular significance outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy. This article, moreover, is an essay on the report written by its opponents. It is highly sceptical of the report. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

On the contrary, the 2004 DoE panel generated a lot of interest "outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy". See here a partial list of newsreports: [10] [11] [12] [13]. If the article shows POV, this should be addressed by editing it, not removing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a definite
  talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm not sure yet - The article sucks, that's for sure. At the time of my comments there is only one ordinarily reliable source used in the footnotes, the rest seem to be selfpublished comments on the panel and its work. So, notability is a question. pcarbon has some poential sources that might make a better article, but if it's not fixed up and the self published comments removed, I don't think we should keep it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fundamental problem here is that it's Pcarbonn's essay on why the DoE panel was wrong not to fund more research, wy they were wrong not to find that the effect exists, why they were wrong not to be convinced by the pro cold fusion lobby and why their methodology was wrong, in that it did not lead to the conclusion the pro cold fusion lobby wanted. If anyone is going to write an article on this subject, they would first have to overcome the fact that all the detailed commentary comes from people pushing the pro cold fusion POV. And that's why I think it needs deleted: the mainstream read the report, nodded and filed it under "we already knew that". Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deletion as the lack of reliable sources indicates a limited notability for inclusion. Generally, I think of myself as an inclusionist, I don't mind there being some fairly short sub-articles on topics, but they have to stand on their own, and I'm not really seeing the case that this does. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this article summarizes 2 different documents: the one presented by cold fusion researchers to the DOE panel, and the report written by DOE panelists. All statements in the article can be sourced to one or the other document. Both are cited in the page in the source section. This article is not an essay that I would have written to prove anything. Also, please check the list of news related to this panel: [14] [15] [16] [17] Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are in the article. A review of a government report is hardly encyclopedic. Delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – to the
  Cold Fusion Shoessss |  Chat  19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's already there, at least as much as is not
  undue weight, though Pcarbonn would love for there to be more material undermining the board. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Although it would, I think, be possible to demonstrate notability for this review, notability is a necessary not a sufficient condition for the existence of an article. In this particular case, the only worthwhile summary of the review that could be constructed would be too short to merit a separate article and would be better placed within Cold fusion, which it already is. The greater part of the article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia - in particular summarizing a scientific paper from any discipline by Wikipedia editors is borderline original research - we should rely on reporting summaries written by specialists. Moreover, the 'Conclusions' section is totally unreferenced (in spite of being the section where one would expect the most diligent citations) and appears to contradict some parts of the preceding sections. If we were to cut the elements of the article that are undesirable (even in a rewritten form) nothing would remain that is not already covered elsewhere. The label POV Fork is difficult to apply without being able to judge some measure of intent and so I have no opinion on that issue. CIreland (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I did not summarize a scientific paper, but instead relied "on summaries written by specialists", ie. on the summary report submitted to the DOE panel by the cold fusion researchers. Please note that there are 2 documents in support of this article: the one submitted to the panel, and the panel report. Hence the apparent contradiction. Both are cited in the page in the source section. If more citations are needed, they can be added. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - it's PoV-fork rather than a topic notable outside Cold fusion, the existing page is heavily arguing the credulous PoV with most sources taken from a single vanity site. A year ago I asked for a cite to these alleged reviewer comments, and the only source for that seems to be the Rothwell site. --Noren (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious POV fork. However, its main reference should be put into the Cold fusion article. Cardamon (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty sure it's already in there. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free audio software

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

)

This is duplication of category: free audio software and isn't going to evolve into anything else. The term itself is a non-notable description of an essentially arbitrary collection of software, and shouldn't have an article to itself. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep - The list includes vital information (i.e. what type of audio software) that is lost in categories. Category vs. list shouldn't be an either/or decision (per
  WP:CSL). Torc2 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - I agree. I often use software lists such as this for research before downloading or installing freeware/shareware/etc.--
  talk) 14:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, lists and categories are not redundant, but complementary. Both are ways of organizing and navigating the wiki. In addition, lists allow much more context to be added (as in this case the non-alphabetical, but categorical sorting of the list). --
  talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - duplication between lists and categories is not a valid basis for deleting lists. See
  WP:CLS. The Transhumanist 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Quoting that guideline: When developers of these redundant systems compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted simply because they overlap, they are doing Wikipedia a disservice. First, editors defend their systems of choice vigorously, so forcing confrontations between them in deletion discussions wastes the time and effort of contributors who would be better utilized by allowing them to develop their respective systems. Second, these pages often have links that their counterparts do not have - simply deleting such pages wastes those links. Third, deleting list pages just because they are redundant to categories may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system - this is a form of instability. Fourth, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. The Transhumanist 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not opposed to using that guide as a counter to this nom, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have pointed out that the last edit to make substantial edits to that paragraph was, ummm, you. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - Article can be organized finer than category. Add entries from category, link harder to relevant articles and categories, maybe to free software templates. 85.140.16.66 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ( Lurking user from Russia, Moscow )[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dischord Records bands

List of Dischord Records bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

With the combination of the

Dischord Records catalog and Category:Dischord Records artists, this page seems relatively redundant. The article hasn't been edited in months, and is pretty sparse on encyclopedic content anyways (the whole article only has one complete sentence). Drewcifer (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. As lists go, this seems ok to me. The list format highlights redlinked artists that won't appear in the category, and it's much easier to view this information here than scanning through the discography. If it hasn't been edited for months, maybe that's because Dischord haven't released anything by new artists in that time. I don't see how deleting this would help Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is not redundant with the category, as it may include bands that do not (yet) have articles. However, no objection to merging with the catalog page. On second thought, the careful noting of the years each band was associated with Dischord convinces me this is worth keeping as a stand-alone article. Note that items in list or table formats can be just as encyclopedic as prose sentences. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The category is irrelevant; per
  WP:CLS, duplication between categories and lists isn't sufficient to delete either. However, I just don't see anything here that necessitates a List article separate from the Catalog page - at most, this could be a two- or three-columned section within the main Dischord article. I don't see any sources on the List page, and it's also unclear whether the dates are supposed to be the dates of each band's existence or the dates they released albums on Dischord. Torc2 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep Seems harmless, and the bands are notable. I'd prefer to see the artists catalogued by way of category, however. --kingboyk (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per sources identified in this debate. Davewild (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoozing

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

)

unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, non-notable neologism as described in
  WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • Delete. The complete lack of references (even from the purported birthplace forums) is a good indication of non-notability, and it reads like an essay. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article may be unsourced but stoozing is certainly a widely recognized term, it gets over 238,000 ghits [18]. RMHED (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment google hits don't equal notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, equally, a "per nom" argument that has clearly had zero effort put into it to double check it independently, which is what you are supposed to be doing, does not have any weight. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple people independent of its inventor have documented this activity in depth, as a mere 1 minute's looking at the results of a Google search reveals. (John Stepek (2006-02-27). "How 'stoozing' could bring down the global economy". MoneyWeek. Digital Look Ltd. ""You can avoid paying interest altogether"". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. 2004-09-11.) The PNC is satisfied.

  Although RMHED's argument is based upon not looking for actual sources that document the subject, so it seems are the arguments of all of the other editors above, as well.

  I encourage all editors to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You are supposed to look for sources yourselves. An article is only unverifiable if you don't find any, having looked. Moreover, having multiple editors doing so is the safeguard that is intended to be incorporated into the AFD process. You don't help to improve the encyclopaedia by not doing the research at AFD and instead simply parroting the nominator. Neither are you being of any help at all to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator's comment: My bad. I admit that i didn't bother looking for sources, because the whole outset looked like a blatant neologism - a silly-sounding nickname from a community website that became an investment strategy. However, the sources that you offered look convincing enough to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Would that they had been added to the article in lieu of being presented here in the form of a lecture. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RMHED, and Uncle G. I've worked on the article and can confirm the term is more widely used... but I don't have any statistics, so... -xC- 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a fairly new phenomenon for which no other non-neologistic term exists. Well documented usage in the public domain. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz the Bee

Buzz the Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unnotable character. Being a Disney character should not equal instant notability. Article has been a two sentence stub since 2005! Not sure if this character exists at all...couldn't find any other sites discussing it.

talk) 07:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete None notable-bee (!) He can buzz-off... Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, it's not a hoax - see this 1951 movie on IMDb including a user comment in which the user calls him "Buzz-Buzz the Bee". Anyhow, regardless of how many onomatopoeic words are in the bee's name, he's non-notable. •
  97198 talk 10:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Buzz Off, fictional character with no wider notability outside of the Disney universe. Lankiveil (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, fictional characters really need some real-world notability to deserve their own articles. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently he was only in a couple of under ten minute cartoons between 1951-52 and after that disappeared totally. Completely NN character. Doc Strange (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to appearing in 1 toon for not a long time. Not notable.
  Soxred93 has a boring sig 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Wangi Stadium

Bali Wangi Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

prod}} tags have been removed. Sandstein (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing whatsoever on Google - you'd think an 85,000 capacity stadium would at least have something about it. A hoax? Lankiveil (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the Google News archive either. Must be a hoax.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Isis Balancing Storage

Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

)

This article is one of a series of articles created on water storages in Queensland, Australia by Whereiswally (talk · contribs). Most of these articles are fine but some are of borderline notability, such as this one. The article does not provide any reliable, independent sources and does not assert the significance of the subject (indeed, quite the opposite using terms such as "duckpond" and "mere"). I don't think that every minor water storage in Queensland is notable enough for an article. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - see below. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added sources and expanded slightly. It appears to be popular with fishermen and is artificially stocked with fish each year. Fosnez (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Almost all verifiable places are notable in my book, and this one moreso because it is a popular fishing location. —Moondyne 07:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a lake that seems well talked about. It is hard to see how a lake, no matter what the state of the current article, is not notable. Not a stretch to write a good article about, based on the fishing alone from what I can see online- Peripitus (Talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument above is persuasive and given the improvement in the article I would like to withdraw my nomination. Given that there has been no support for deleting this article, perhaps someone not involved in the discussion to date would like to speedily close this . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Colony ARK

Space Colony ARK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Fails notablity and is presented in a guide like fashion. I am a sonic fan, so I am not attacking the series. Fangz of Blood 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, does not seem to be notable outside of the Sonic universe. Lankiveil (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete nothing more then a very long plot summary for a non-notable aspect of a franchise. Fails
  WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and other comments above. --Jack Merridew 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing out of plot will come from this, but it fits perfectly here. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is an element of one of the all time most notable game series and is even presented nicely. It just needs additional sources. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stump_(game)

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

Orphaned, not notable, etc. Cafedelgato (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up while drinking one day. No sources attesting to the wider notability of this game. Lankiveil (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:MADEUP as well. Only links are to it's website and myspace. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BOLLOCKS Doc Strange (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Rate

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

Thoroughbred horse that's only stated claim to notability was beating another non-notable horse in a non-notable race. A read-through at the article itself should convince any skeptic. CastAStone/^/(talk) 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable outside sources to verify notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly one reliable outside source and it is in the article. And I just added a second. --Smashville^BONK! 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication that the race he won or the horse he beat is notable outside of horseracing enthusiasts. Lankiveil (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. If we deleted any article which is not "notable outside of X enthusiasts", there would not be many left. Looks reasonably notable to me, I don't see any reason to delete. --Zvika (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• On the Fence Delete...I am of the opinion that a horse needs to win a graded stakes race (or be Zippy Chippy) to be considered notable. However, reliable sources do exist - one was in the article...for the record, In Summation won this year's Bing Crosby Handicap...not even remotely not notable. --Smashville^BONK! 06:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough. The sport of thoroughbred horse riding doesn't gain anything with the article.
  • 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, agree that the horse didn't prove to do anything notable enough on the track or in the breeding shed.(Keycap (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Sufficient sources demonstrated for this group to demonstrate real world notability. I considered a no-consensus but as the AFD was about notability the BBC sources are sufficient to meet that concern

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Team Dignitas

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

)

non-notable gaming clan Mhking (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I speedied it; if that doesn't apply, then delete, as the article doesn't show notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obviously. Just a vanity gaming clan. Jmlk17 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think it's not a speedy, as it asserts notability in the first sentence (even though the claim might be interpreted as "bullshit" by some), but either way it's a vanity page for a non-notable group. Lankiveil (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  Assertion of notability is reinforced only with a sturdy outside source; otherwise, half of the new articles that are created as a joke/vanity would have to be put up at AFD. That's what I think, at least. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. Notability is verified by outsides sources, but to "assert" notability, all one has to do is make a (valid) claim to being notable. The criteria for an A7 speedy is intentionally very easy to meet. For the record, this article does not meet it. UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I disagree, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states that "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources.", which I interpret to mean that any assertion of notability, no matter how flimsy or bogus, invalidates a CSD A7. Not that I mind if this article is killed off, since the group is quite clearly non-notable, but the relevant section of the policy page has nothing on requiring steady sources that I can see. Lankiveil (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy Delete per my above below comment. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because it's a game clan is not a reason to delete. If this clan has actually placed in all these competitions then yes they are notable. Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Game clan is a reason to delete. Unless multiple reliable sources wrote about them, no, they aren't notable. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gameclan. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

want to point to a policy that bans game clans from wikipedia? Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS pretty much ensure that unless a gameclan collectively solves world hunger or something else, they won't have the real-world notability and reliable sources required to write an article about them. JuJube (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment from google news [19] , [20], [21] [22] , from a regular google search hmmm how many non-notable people get sponsorship deals [23], [24], and how many non-notable people get write ups from the BBC [25], searching the teams name plus Quake returns over 200,000 hits. These clans are big business they are like minor sport stars. Everyone in this debate is just assuming it's a bunch of kids in their parents basement. Next time actually look before you make statements about sources. Ridernyc (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if I count correctly there are 8 different articles mentioning them on the BBC news site [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. JuJube (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it needs to be fixed the listing of their international rankings is more then enough to establish notability. Might want to strike your comment though. Ridernyc (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, this article wouldn't be here, would it? And for the record, the first 3 sources are just press releases, and the fourth isn't about the team, it just interviews a member. Some of the 8 you mentioned in your second comment can possibly work under

WP:RS to prove verifiability, but just being internationally ranked in something isn't enough. And a better claim of notability than "among the best British (game) clans" is needed too. I think it can be saved, but you (or someone) need to do the work. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, non-notable gaming clan, sources provided are trivial passing mentions. --
  desat 10:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the sources that Ridernyc provided, especially the BBC, convinces me that they are notable in their field. Fosnez (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Master of Puppets' comment. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Master of Puppets' comment. Non-notable "organisation" - most likely a page created by the members of the group. Mr.bonus (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They certainly seem notable, the BBC references mentioned above [27] are pretty convincing. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can we move on from the speedy delete debate, we are obviously past that point. Ridernyc (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, the page was created by a member of the team itself, yes, it's probably been done unprofessionally i.e. not yet on Wikipedia standards, but I can't understand how you can call Dignitas un-notable in the eSport/gaming scene - due to all the achievements we have reached, all the major tournaments we have won and all the big sponsors we have, everyone who's into the eSports-scene would put Dignitas in the top10 of the most important teams in the World if you consider eSports in general, not only e.g. Counter-Strike. If you want to delete eSports-entries all-together, go on but if you want to keep articles about major eSports teams than you can't delete an article about Team Dignitas - help me making it better, but Dignitas is too important imo to have its article deleted. --DignitasMepH (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - if not, then just delete. In your opinion it's too important, sorry if I don't see past your bias. Plus, I don't think the terms important and eSports can go in the same sentence. Plus, google hits don't count towards notability - it's in the Wiki policy. Lughguy (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you don't feel the subject of the article is important doesn't mean that it's automatically non-notable (though I also find the idea of "e-sports" laughable). If notability can be established through the
    usual process, then it should be kept. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Numerous secondary sources including several on the BBC establish notability for this group. In addition, they are sponsored by Intel [28], the largest computer chip builder in the world. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hehe I saw these guys on Sky One the other day (or was it Sky2?) and I have also seen them multiple times in PC World Magazine and on that Xleague channel from SKy so I cant see how the arent notable? If you remove these guys you should remove all gaming clans not matter how big you think they are. 21:08, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

This is the only edit by a new user, which was created just 4 minutes before the edit. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)}

• Delete per Masterofpuppets. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the notability inside eSports is quite obvious with the mentioned sources like BBC and Sky. I think what people keep arguing against is rather the notability of eSports and I don't think this is the place to discuss that. --DignitasMepH (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs a heckuva cleanup, but BBC spits out a bunch of articles if you search for them: [29]. Watchsmart (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-English refs are certainly OK, so I will return this article to the version before they were removed. Bduke (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Maron

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

non-sourced article; the few sources that have been cited are all foreign language sources; subject's notability not established as a result. Mhking (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while
  WP:REF encourages the use of English sources where possible, it says that "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate". These were formerly in the article, but they have been removed. A quick look at the Spanish version of the page (es:Karen Maron) shows 58 references, which should be enough to establish notability. Lankiveil (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedied by User:Ben W Bell. Singularity 04:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Paints

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

Written like an advertisement for the company. Lacks references backing up the "awards" it won. Serious NPOV issues. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I think this fits speedy criteria under A7:
  WP:COMPANY. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - looks like an advertisement
  123 review me 03:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

60 meters

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

)

Unsourced and NN Malevious --Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced
  123 review me 03:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep, radio band exists [30], and would appear to be relatively new [31], [32]. I'll leave it to someone from the radio wikiproject to assert whether these are usually considered notable, but it's definitely sourceable with relatively little effort. Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable, just needs work. Internationally-allocated shortwave band. For an idea of what this article might look like after some attention, see
  80 meters. Note the template on the bottom of that page, there's only a few of these Amateur shortwave bands and we can easily cover them in depth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs expanding though, as with any new stub (and I could myself). An international amateur allocation at this frequency has just been declined at the recent World Radiocommunication Conference nevertheless it is likely some more countries will allocate spectrum for amateur radio there in the near future. In that case it is as worthy of an article as any of the other amateur bands. There are plenty of sources for references. Dsergeant (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 60m band has existed in the UK for several years and there is a considerable amount of propagation experimental work being undertaken on this band. There are long-established amateur radio beacons and world class software has been developed by radio amateurs to analyse the propagation data that these beacons and a network of listening stations have collected. This band occupies a unique place in the radio spectrum, providing many interesting opportunities for research. The band is actively used by, amongst other groups, the Summits On The Air programme. (G3WGV/N3GV) --John Linford (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 60m amateur band is an exceptionally unique frequency that offers licensed radio amateurs, under a notice of variation in the UK, access to seven unique “channels” in the 5MHz spectrum, to carry out defined experiments. Access to these frequencies is also given to military cadet stations in the UK and for the first time ever in amateur radio history licensed radio amateurs and military cadet station may communicate together. This frequency using NVIS antennas supports inter UK communication easily, at relatively low power and with minimal interference, indeed in a time of emergency this part of the radio spectrum could form the ideal communication medium. Other countries also have access to set channels in the 5MHz spectrum including USA and it’s dependencies (50 watts ERP), USB only, Iceland, Norway, Finland plus others. (G4TRA) 172.202.121.25 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A brief but useful statement regarding the 60 meters allocation that needs expanding. (MW0DTH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenhowes (talk • contribs) 10:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful reference for amateurs who do not have access to the band, should be expanded, Tim M0AFJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.243.121 (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 6m is the most significant allocation that has been made to the Amateur Radio service in the UK and other countries in recent years. The frequencies allocated are used for experimental purposes and there is also a significant level of usage by the Summits on the Air (SOTA) programme where the propagation characteristics of the band have been found to be a considerable asset. Gerald G4OIG, 11:38 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Lankiveil. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For a non-Amateur to mark this page for deletion seems a bit random but it's prompted a flurry of updates to the stub, which can only be a good thing. Simon G4NZG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonnzg (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful page that needs some development and expansion but this is a good start. 60m is an important and very useful part of the frequency spectrum which is relatively new to radio amateurs. (GW4BVE) Jclifford99 (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 60 meters is an important band to study and use maximum distance non skip propagation. This is useful for national level comunications and as such has been much valued by the miltary. Present and future amateur involvement in this band will maintain a grounding and knowledge of its important characteristics. This is therefore a useful page to reference this band and its nature. Graham M0GEB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbeesley (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NAHID 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazumi Tanaka

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

Seems notable by the number of times he has been a voice actor, but I'm not really sure about it.

Sandbox) 02:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I believe its worthy of being kept due to sheer number of roles played by actor, there is a lot of potential for expansion , including a section on his death which is notably absent.--Kerotan^Sup? Have a nice day :) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep borderline notability as voice actor in some very famous movies and as narrator of weekly broadcast television show. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jerry. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough if only for vast number of parts. Article does require expansion and more references (maybe a cleanup tag?) - Dumelow (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Article needs cleanup and some additional references, but is otherwise a decent stub. Articles about him shouldn't be hard to come by since he died just a few days ago. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nihonjoe. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wood-Smith

Ian Wood-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly notable lawyer at first glance, but upon further research, seems to have come up as quite non-notable. Jmlk17 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  123 review me 03:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question, might he be notable as a member of the
  FA Premier League Board of Directors? Unfortunately, I cannot find any lists of the current board, which throws up verifiablity questions. Lankiveil (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete - notability. And even if he is a member of the Board of Directors I don't think there is notability by association. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Bduke (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superinteressante

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

Delete Advertising piece for NN magazine Mayalld (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article has been nominated for deletion 1 minute after its creation. Just something interesting to notice. -- Loukinho (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional as it is, the article still describes a highly popular magazine (0,5 million circulation, if the numbers are right). Perhaps wikization and NPOV would help? Pundit|utter 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable on its own. More than that, I just noticed that there are some other interwiki related to this specific article (pt.wiki, es.wiki, gl.wiki) AND i just added. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The es and gl interwiki links are for a different magazine.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Oh, I just noticed that. I'm sorry for the mistake. Thank you for taking the time to fix it. :) Loukinho (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 02:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, seems to be a notable publication in Brazil, but the tone and style of the article really needs to be worked on. Lankiveil (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Bduke (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vergennes Union High School

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

Non-notable school, written like an ad.

than 01:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Poor-quality article, should be cleaned up, but definitely notable as a high school. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 700 students doesn't seem notable to me. I've seen high schools with many more students. Can you justify notability, please? Thanks!

than 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I assume he is one of those editors who think that high schools are automatically notable despite not having a single guideline or policy supporting that claim (in other words, baseless claims of notability). TJ Spyke 01:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, many high schools are far bigger, but to my experience with AFD highschools have generally been seen as inherently notable. No single case can decide it, but check AFD archives for recent months and it should be obvious. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I had an edit conflict: as Wikipedia is built on consensus, unless my assertion that highschools have generally been kept as notable in AFD discussions, I don't see why that should be ignored as you seem to me to be saying. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom
  than 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No claims of notability, fails
  WP:N. TJ Spyke 01:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To anybody who might say "give it some time", the article has existed for over 3 YEARS with no sources. TJ Spyke 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL -- Masterzora (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an official policy yet. Thus, in my opinion and I think per policy, the policy can't be cited.

than 02:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct, that is just a proposed policy (one that has multiple different proposals, only 1 of which would make all schools notable). That means it has not power over articles, and is no different than citing an essay (which is just the opinion of who wrote it, not guideline or policy). TJ Spyke 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —RMHED (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There does appear to be several significant citations about the school in Google News [33]. Also, wasn't this one of the handful of groups who actually protested against the war in Iraq before the war even started? That alone would make the school notable. --Polaron | Talk 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per
  WP:OUTCOMES Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Um, care to cite an actual policy or guideline? OUTCOMES in an unsourced opinion piece based on the general outcomes of articles. It isn't meant (or should be) a guideline as to how AFD results should end. I cited an actual guideline that the article fails. TJ Spyke 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It's just like you stated above: if he's citing something not policy, then it's being cited as an opinion argument rather than an argument from policy. Doesn't make the citation any less valid, it just serves a different purpose. -- Masterzora (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not appear to be a particularly notable school. Most of the Google News links are just offhand mentions of the school in sundry legal proceedings, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep A brief start found some twenty or so state championships. Other claims of notability seem available to be added. The claims, supported by reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. This is an actual guideline that the article passes. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a brief google news search showed that there are sources out there, and it has been established many times that all secondary schools are notable because they are a major part of many 1000s of people's lives over their existence. Fosnez (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete no real assertion of notaiblity, per nom. Just because many people have been there does not make something notable. Something acctually has to occur. Narson (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in reference to state championships, they don't confer notability to the people who won them for the school, why would they confer them to the school? Though, the censorship case does edge me more towards a merge if I could find the appropriate article (Censorship in the United States?). For now changing to Weak Delete from Delete. Narson (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As people seem to be rattling on about alumnus....being married to a famous person does not confer notability...now...if screwing the married people, devoting your life to them, having children with them, sharing their life, what have you, doesn't confer notability...the fact that at some point they were required to go to that place for a period of their day for certain parts of the year for a handful of years obviously shouldn't. Narson (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unlike prison, school is not merely a place where someone is sentenced to serve 4-12 years, with time off for good behavior. Above and beyond the fact that society dictates that children of school age must attend school, the school is required to provide an education to these children. As part of providing this education, the teachers and faculty of the school play a strong role in molding the future notable. Whether that person is a future politician, actor, athlete, comedian, etc., the school plays a critical role in shaping the individual and establishing his notability. If the school accomplishes the goal of molding a future notable and manages not to screw the student, that connection is notable. If the school manages to be the source of multiple notables, all the more so. Alansohn (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't consider prison an experience that would change someone? Crashing into a lamp post changes a person in a far more direct way, I doubt the lamppost has notability transferred at point of impact, if you will pardon the clumsy metaphore. I honestly doubt school plays an important part in, say, a reality TV show winner or some of the other more 'random' notable persons. Regardless, I would say that makes something possibly of value to be mentioned in the persons article, rather than have its own, but, as people wish it, so it shall be. One can only hope such trivialities get weeded out at version 1.0 (if we ever get so far). Narson (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for info and sources added. Secondary schools tend to be notable per
  WP:OUTCOMES. The Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School court case helped set boundaries in school censorship and several books have been written about it. Also, the school's athletics have won several state championships. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My school's band has won several national championships, but that doesn't automatically make it notable.
  complain?) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please let me know what high school you attended so that I can be sure to include the championship details in the article or create the article if it doesn't exist. As you can clearly see here, such awards and recognition are exactly among the characteristics that make a school notable, as longstanding consensus has shown. Alansohn (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sheesh, never mind the longstanding consensus that we ought to keep articles about high schools, an important federal case about censorship involved this school. There should be absolutely, positively no question that this article is notable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  123 review me 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per Gene93K. State championships and a court case of that magnitude definitely show notability.
  matt91486 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep AFAIC high schools are notable. RMHED (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please cite that it is ASAIC?
  complain?) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This school along with several others were involved in a court case that focused on book censorship in school libraries which has received substantial coverage in many books. [34] Reference to this court case and school is common whenever court cases regarding book censorship comes up so that makes the school notable. Winning several championships also establishes some notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - obviously. Notable court case, numerous state championships, notable alumnus etc = easy compliance with
  talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep meets WP:N.
  talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per terriersfan. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per subjectivity problems which lead to POV issues. Davewild (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of boondoggles

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

This article appears to consist only of material which was removed from

talk) 00:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete or merge back into white elephant per Nick Dowling. No reason for this page to exist separately. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent far too much time on this material already. Deletion will prevent me from being tempted to expend any more effort. Wtroopwept (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Dowling is right. Merge the instances which can be sourced back into 'White Elephant', a much more common and universal term. I looked for a source for the Millenium Dome being described as such and found one easily (A Guardian article and John Prescott quote). Nick mallory (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the decision of whether something is a "boondoggle" or not is entirely subjective, thus giving the page an unavoidable case of the
  WP:POVes. Lankiveil (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Delete only 6 out 26 citations use the term boondoggle. This article is full of original research and pov issues. Ridernyc (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A
  that ugly thing that your aunt gave you. So, the issue just a matter of sorting one from the other which is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as an obvious inherent violation of
  WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 12:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as subjective POV. Whether a scheme is a ultimately a waste of effort and money is a matter of perspective. To write off the Great Eastern and Yamato battleships for example is a huge oversimplification. This list cannot cover the full story of these projects in a fair, encyclopaedic and balanced manner, but makes a POV judgement on them in its title.
  Benea (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MirandaX

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

Unnotable third-party build of Miranda IM, could be better mentioned in the main article. ViperSnake151 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above, and as unsourced
  WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable third-party release of some open source software. In addition, describing certain plugins as "the most important" is
  WP:OR. Lankiveil (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete, no notability established. Maybe Merge relevent material to main article - Dumelow (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (also deleting redirects under

WP:CSD#R1) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mukasa Dada (Willie Ricks)

Mukasa Dada (Willie Ricks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

reliable, independent sources

, as all results are either free-webspace hosted pages or drafts on spaces of schools or universities.

Note to closing administrator: Two redirects, Willie Ricks, Mukasa Dada. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above, and as unsourced
  WP:OR. It even tries to cite Wikipedia a few times as a source! Cirt (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. If it's deleted, Mukasa Dada will also need to be deleted (and Willie Ricks). The article was originally deleted back on December 2, recreated recently at Mukasa Dada and then copy and paste moved to the current article (which was created on the same day, so the article creater doesn't seem to know how to move an article). TJ Spyke 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:OR essay. Lankiveil (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Smith (martial arts fighter)

Jimmy Smith (martial arts fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No encyclopedic notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Brewcrewer, subject appears in a non-notable tv program and has no self-notability - Dumelow (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per brew. Non-notable. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete -- show premieres Friday, Dec. 28. Momentum on YouTube and on message boards as people debate whether fighters are better or worse than History Channel's Human Weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystynlo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only signs of notability include winning some seemingly minor jujitsu titles and appearing on the Carson Daly show. --Badger Drink (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as appearing to fail
  WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Sundgaard

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

Unexplained anon disputed the prod, appears not to meet

WP:NOTE. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If we had an article on every meteorologist on Earth, just think how many articles we would have. I know the policy regarding this comment about disk space, but that would just be an unnecessary, massive waste of it.
  than 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, the style of the article suffers greatly from the fact that it appears to have been directly slanted by a desire to forestall claims of not being of encyclopaedic worth. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Narson (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Bduke (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks

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

)

This article is not needed; All it does is detail

9/11 attacks. If we have a page for Rudy, we might as well have a page for every major public figure. (i.e. Dick Cheney during the September 11, 2001 attacks) Noah¢s (Talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I agree with Noahcs's point. Although the article has some fine facts in it, they would do just as good in different sections of different articles. (such as
  Ground Zero, ect.]Tavix (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and Rename Rudy Giuliani and the September 11, 2001 attacks. After reviewing the Giuliani article this seems to me like any other breakout section, and certainly the topic is notable as an independent entity with plenty of info that would overwhelm the parent article (in fact the Giuliani article is probably too long as it stands now). I don't see how the possibility that this could lead to more articles on similar lines should be a factor in this decision. They should and will be judged on their own if created. Joshdboz (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is so much information on this that it had to be split from the original
  TX 01:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Abstain -Roofus (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very simple arithmetic proves the case: Giuliani has based much of his presidential campaign on references to his connection to 9/11 PLUS: He is one of the major candidates (usually leading in the polls in 2007). EQUALS: A subject very, very obviously worth a well-sourced, neutral Wikipedia article.
  talk) 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  than 02:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. This article cannot be merged with Rudy Giuliani without making that article too large. Giuliani's response to 9/11 is far from being his only claim to fame, yet it is his greatest moment of glory. That part of his biography needs to be treated in a separate article, if only because of limitations on article length. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This was a
  WP:Summary-style breakout from the Rudy Giuliani article, for length reasons. The nom's comparison to Dick Cheney is ill-founded, as Giuliani had responsibility for the city's preparedness beforehand, response during, and recovery after the attacks; Cheney and other political figures did not. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but purely on the grounds that this is a breakout article from
  Rudy Guiliani, and merging the content back would make that article too large. Lankiveil (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep — he was the mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks, an event which defined his remaining term as mayor, and his political future. He has based his 2008 Presidential run on this. His relationship to the event is absolutely encyclopedic. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable subject too detailed to be thoroughly discussed in either the Giuliani or 9/11 articles. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mr. 9/11 has based so much of his campaign on this that it is indeed notable as a subject. Fosnez (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A fine, fine article (even if somewhat on a gruesome subject). This is a classic case where less is more, and summary style & separate main article on a facet of the subject does wikipedia proud. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, granting undue weight to a subject because it was recent (and hence covered heavily on the Internets), and it's too
  WP:SYNny for my liking. We should be covering others who consider the subject as a whole, rather than collating lots of different events and putting an article title on it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep While the title may sound like an
  original synthesis, this article seems to be an objective and necessary split from the main article on Guiliani for length reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, given his large role in the aftermath of the attacks, a perfectly suitable subarticle. --
  talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Per
  WP:OR and that its not necessary at all. Merge pertinent information with Rudy Giuliani. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment What O.R.? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above with no prejudice to putting this back up after (a) he loses the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary or (b) he is elected President of the United States. In all fairness, this has been up since June '07, but it does look like campaign material more than anything. Mandsford (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as historically significant event, and the main article is too long. I added a few minor tags and cleaned it up a bit. It seems very well-balanced and sourced well enough for POV purposes. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific, too much overlap. There's a good reason why we don't have such articles (i.e. Richard Daley during the 1968 riots) and I would hate to see this one to set any sort of precedent for the endless fracturing of major topics. This isn't a 9/11 wiki. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to

Telephone tapping. Davewild (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Webtapping

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

)

I think it could easily be mentioned in the Wiretapping article; though webtapping does seem to be used in media, I don't think it is deserving of it's own article. Also, the last part is a bit NPOV. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.
  than 02:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per nom
  123 review me 03:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge, nominator's suggestion is sensible and logical. Lankiveil (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jones (Stitch Media)

Evan Jones (Stitch Media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does this person have the requisite notability for Wikipedia, especially in light of this being an autobiographical entry. Avi (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't think so. Note that as far as I can tell, the claim to have won Emmy awards seems to be bogus, and his company website mentions nothing of the sort, only the LinkedIn profile supplied. Lankiveil (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete His previous company (Xenophile) might be notable but thats all the third party sources cover. There lacks any verifiable assertion of his own notability in the piece, and considering how minor the notability of his previous company, I can't see the pieces to give him notability being found. Narson (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response from Author The awards mentioned are as follows: Fallen Alternate Reality Game (Creative Arts Emmy for Interactive Television 2007), ReGenesis Extended Reality Game (International Emmy for Interactive Program, 2007) both awarded while Creative Director at Xenophile and credited on each project here and here. If you require individual awards for notability they can be supplied as well. I understand the reservation on approving autobiographies - if this is the policy then feel free to remove. If the deletion is based on suspected falsehoods then I can provide other third-party support. User:mysteryjones (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:mysteryjones is the subject of this article. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Vaux

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

No indication of meeting the academics' notability guidelines at

If you've written a quality article... 08:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• He formulated Vaux's Law - I added corresponding info with references. He qualifies per
  criteria no. 5: "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." --tickle me 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Google search result is very good. [36] An expert of his field. 76.17.125.144 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His field has hundreds of experts. What makes him stand out? Thank you,
    If you've written a quality article... 08:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what makes him stand out? First, the naming of a scientific law after him. Second, position as a professor at a major university, and an equivalent position at another. third, publishing several books on the subject by the highest quality university presses. There are probably a few thousand people with doctorates in linguistics, and the top 10% or 20% or so stand out. DGG (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't be blindsided by the fact that we linguists like to use the word "law" to refer to broad generalizations that (unlike laws in physics, for example) usually have almost as many exceptions as examples. Perhaps the top 10% or 20% of the people with doctorates in linguistics stand out, but your criteria (position as a professor at a major university, publishing several books with high-quality university presses) cover more like the top 50% to 60% of them.—
    If you've written a quality article... 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep. As per DGG. In addition, he has a reasonable citation record on Google Scholar[37], given the size of the field, these citation numbers are probably pretty good. The title of the journal mentioned in the opening paragraph sounds wrong, though, perhaps someone can find the correct one? --Crusio (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • When you enclose his name in quotes, his Google Scholar hits sink to 200. For comparison, my own name gets about the same number (and as far as I can tell, the majority do all refer to me, not to possible other people with the same name). Sorry, but even when restricted to Google Scholar, Google hits ≠ notability. To your second point, that seems to be the right name. —
    If you've written a quality article... 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Perhaps there should then be an article about you, too :-). Seriously, I don't know the field of linguistics well. In my own field (Neuroscience and Genetics) these citation counts would be rather modest, but I gathered that articles having more than 40 citations might be rather good in linguistuics. Is that mistaken? --Crusio (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean an article that's been cited in 40 other articles (written by other people, of course!)? Yes, that's pretty good (my dissertation only gets 26), but it doesn't seem to be significantly more than would be expected of anyone hoping to get tenure. —

  If you've written a quality article... 11:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My thesis got 2 or 3 (all by myself... :-) How about the other points mentioned by DGG (books with major publishers, "law" named after him)? --Crusio (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  He has one book with OUP, presumably an updated version of his dissertation. He also has one book with Lincom Europa, which is a pretty minor publisher that will (if the rumors I've heard are true) publish almost anything and then refuse to pay authors their royalties. And he's the editor of an upcoming volume of papers. Nothing out of the ordinary for someone with tenure or hoping to get it soon. As for "Vaux's Law", I was made aware of the connection between voiceless fricatives and aspirated stops when I was in grad school, well before he published that paper. I really don't understand why it gets to be named after him. He's a fine phonologist and still relatively young; maybe he'll do something in the future that will really change the course of phonological theory, but to me, it doesn't look like he has so far. —

  If you've written a quality article... 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So you would not agree with DGG that Vaux is in the top 10-20% of his field now (we cannot predict what may or may not happen in future)? --Crusio (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I don't. The top 10-20% of his field is occupied by the likes of

  If you've written a quality article... 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You've convinced me: Delete. --Crusio (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just going by numbers, f there are say 500 experts, then the top 20% is 100 and we should have articles on them all, not just the 5 or 6. But the WP:PROF criterion is more notable than the average, so he just has to be in the top 50% to meet that. DGG (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you interpret

If you've written a quality article... 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I added a section that shows he's quoted in mainstream press. Also see google news search.[45] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added still more refs from the mainstream press, and there are still more of them. Plus I added a couple more books we authored or co-authored. Whether or not he's in the "top x%" he seems clearly notable based on the press coverage per

WP:PROF Criteria #1 and Example #2. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

yes,it does seem that way. DGG (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Under the criteria of PROF, which are, I agree, less strict than other notability guidelines, he does seem to pass. After all, I doubt all phonologists teach at the Cambridge University, have a work published by one of the foremost academic publishing houses and have a law, even if crappy, named after them.--Aldux (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While one opinion is hardly consensus, the lack of any

WP:V sources to support the article content is a decisive factor. Pigman☿ 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

FADFI

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

Seems to be an entirely non-notable organisation, and only a Google blog as its official website: http://fadfi.blogspot.com/ This seems more like a bunch of Iranian kids getting a kick out of trying to be nationalists, than a serious organisation. Also, the current article is shit, with no sources cited. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 17:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. However, no objections to recreation when the album is actually released. --Tone 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You Don't Have to Worry...

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/You Don't Have to Worry...

You Don't Have to Worry... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Shoots self in foot with the first line - basically speculation due to the viral marketing (apart from the release of NitA) Will ^(talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:CRYSTAL; besides, an album which isn't even out yet deserves a rebuttal presumption of non-notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KeepIt shouldn't be deleted. There has been notable, citeable information coming these past weeks and there's still more to come. Yeah, the title is speculated, but that's about it. Change it to an "Untitled 08" or something of that sort if that speculation is really what's buggingThedarkchao93 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Beyond
  crystal ballery, outright non-encyclopedic speculation. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oh, the
  Soxred93 has a boring sig 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as it is just a rumor and does not exist yet..... -RiverHockey (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not rumored, Panic! has stated the date of the album and songs from this album have been in circulation since August, 2007. However the name of the album is pure speculation, but just because the name is speculative doasn't mean the facts about the album aren't true. Knight Whitefire (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Suggest changing the title of the article to Untitled Panic! at the Disco album or something to that effect. The album is definitely coming on a set date, as shown in the references. At this point, I'd say there is enough information to warrant keeping the article, and we all know more information will be available soon, so deleting it now only to recreate it in the near future seems pointless. Also, the article has 2 legit references (I'm not counting the band's site or the Youtube link), which is 2 more than most album pages have. Tdogg241 (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we merge Panic! at the Disco's 2007-2008 New Album section (Most of which I wrote and referenced) with the article in question. We would have an adequate amount of information and references to satisfy the needs of wikipedian guidelines and remove the notion of crystal ballery. Knight Whitefire (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't care about the title as long as the article stays around... the title is not You Don't Have to Worry. This article does contain speculation, but then again, so do many other articles. If all unsourced trivia is removed, especially the parts about the website, then this article would be great to have around. The "Second album" section of the P!atD page should be merged with this article. JazzlineB (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepIt will only have to be recreated when more details come out - it's pointless to delete only to have it remade in a few weeks. Greg James (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  WP:CRYSTAL Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree wtih Greg, and that new information is constantly coming to light. Although the information here is incomplete and some of it yet to be confirmed, I've yet to see any false information. I don't think the "Second Album" information of the P!ATD page should be merged btw, I believe that information should be shortened, rewritten to two or threes paragraphs, then possibly merged. Venyx (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the "second" article. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. This one's kind of tough. On the one hand the album totally exists, and will be out relatively soon; on the other, the article is basically crystal ballery. Seeing the reliable sources, I'd say keep, but remove all unsourced statements. However, this brings us to very few relevant statements, and we are left without a title. Unless we can find a concrete source that the album will be released under that name, or any other name for that matter, I'm going for delete, but keep updating the section in the band's page. That section is the first step to an acceptable article. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crystalline album. We need to get more brutal with this stuff ... it takes a lot of time to verify all of these future album pieces, and it would be nicer if we could just speedy them until the actual release date.Kww (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Webber

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Miles Webber
• Articles for deletion/Miles Webber (2nd nomination)

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

)

Fictional character of who notability is not asserted. There are no supplied reliable independent sources on the fictional character. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a minor TV character with no assertion of real world notability. RMHED (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, nothing else to say. — Becksguy (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush (in foreign languages)

Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush (in foreign languages) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a substantial article, content not especially relevant, and could if necessary be included in main article. Merging wouldn't create a useful redirect, so deletion seems the best option.

talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete seems like a speedy, as it is a page for the name of the bird in various languages. This is the English language wikipedia. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BOLLOCKS Doc Strange (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. see also this Jimfbleak (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RiverHockey and nom Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I created it. I think it should be deleted, too, but I also think the Chinese name for this bird should be recorded somewhere. Since Jimfbleak undoes the Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush article when I add the Chinese without a thorough discussion, there was no choice except to create this page. As for this being the English language wikipedia, I don't understand how blocking foreign languages is useful to users of the encyclopedia, English speaking or otherwise. As an Internet-based encyclopedia, there is no need to ban useful information such as foreign equivalents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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