Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 4 December 6 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Raging safari

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

High school sports club with limited claims of meeting WP:Notability. 32 non-wiki ghits for "Raging safari" + frisbee, none of which show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete - obvious hoax. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Vs. Jaws

King Kong Vs. Jaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this article is a hoax. I can't find any information on IMDB, and can't find the information on the site of Universal pictures, to which a link is supplied as a reference either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN: This was speedy deleted earlier today. Flea as voice capture for shark? -Carados (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was deleted per: 'A bit of A7, A1 and a dash of WP:IAR. No prejudice to recreation if some facts can be found and referenced.' I wouldn't know how to tag for that. (not that I disagree with deleting this one fast, it seems like a full blown vandalism hoax. but then again, there is some pretty out there stuff, that turns out true (or more importantly, verifiable). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, that is the exact reason, but it did come about from a speedy deletion tag.-Carados (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, it's a Spielberg produced, Peter Jackson directed, Tom Cruise starring film in pre-production and absolutely no sources or news hits. In the real world, that is a tad unlikely. Ummm, first time I think I have ever said this, but let it
snow. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has been deleted here. --Phirazo 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If you start making up titles for crossover films, you will get to this one fairly quickly. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not, it fails notability guidelines on films. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, funny as it may be. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I gotta admit, the thought of Andy Serkis and Michael Balzary as the "voices" for King Kong and for Jaws made me laugh. Kind of like a live action Jabberjaw. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Hoax. It's just too unbelievable. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although the company getting the contract for Kong's
      waterwings would be made for life. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete as hoax. JJL (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Althopugh hoaxes are not criteria for speedy, my originaial rationale (above) when I deleted still stands. I'd say speedy, but It's best to let this run it's course. Pedro :  Chat  08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is embarrassing. It is articles such as this that bring Wikipedia's reputation for veracity into question. I can't believe this hasn't been speedied. Jeffpw (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I proposed one, there is no speedy deletion criterion for this kind of articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a malicious hoax that was already speedily deleted, and 5VH9 (talk · contribs) should be blocked for continuing to write out lies. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear hoax with no verifiable sources and an unfathomable premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As hoax. From what i can tell, 5VH9 is a big hoax creator--B5JH (talk) 02:04, 7 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. -

Mailer Diablo 10:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Abortion, The Other White Meat

Abortion, The Other White Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song by notable band. As much as I love The Mars Volta, is song is not notable. Carados (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete totally non-notable. Played once at a concert as an improv song.--CastAStone|(talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless this article gets seriously beefed up, it should be deleted. I'll change my vote if it's expanded. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly nn. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, although it's a funny title to a song. Any more cites? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 6 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. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disc biacuplasty

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

Non-notable alternative treatment, probably written by the owner of the publicity firm of the sole provider.

Docg 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Carefully read
WP:NOT, and see how this fits the bill. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Disc biacuplasty is a procedure that has been developed by Baylis Medical as a safer more efficient alternative to IDET (a patented treatment using heat -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervertebral_disc_annuloplasty ) or surgery. Disc biacuplasty has received (just like IDET) its own reimbursement code and has been approved worldwide by health organizations. As of now, about 300 patients have received the disc biacuplasty treatment. Doctors who performs an IDET procedure (or annuloplasty) uses a proprietary RF probe manufactured by Smith & Nephew and no others; doctors who performs this new procedure, namely "disc biacuplasty", also uses a proprietary RF probe, the TransDiscal system probes manufactured by Baylis Medical.
Several publications have been published in medical journals on the value and efficiency of the disc biacuplasty procedure and signed by world medical pain experts such as DR. Nagy Mekhail, md, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Dr Michael Gofeld, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center; Dr Jeffrey D. Petersohn, md, Pain Care Clinic; Dr Paul H. Dreyfuss, Washington Interventional Spine Associates; Dr Steven L. Simmons, University of Texas; etc.
Is IDET astroturfing?
In reference to this link (COI [2]), this site is about my past personal life (it has not been updated for the past 10 years, I think) and in all transparency, I am employed by Baylis Medical as Associate, Communications.--Lucdesaulniers (talk) 15:36, 6 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. — Scientizzle 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Davis (coach)

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

Come on, we don't even know this guy's name? Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 5 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 both. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf's Imperial Army and McGillicuddy Highland Army

These articles appear to be about a hobby reenactment club, but are rather lacking in sourcing other than from their members' home pages. This would appear not to be a notable organization. Perhaps one of the Wikias is a better location. >Radiant< 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep for Alf's; keep for McGillicuddys. Should be very easy to find other sources - these are indeed "hobby reenactment groups", but ones with a very high profile in NZ, especially Alf's. Articles definitely need a rewrite, but they don't need deletion. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both The short version: lack of outside sources => lack of notability. Is there a claim of notability in the article? Why/how is the group notable? What outside sources do we have to back up those claims of notability? -- Swerdnaneb 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article for AIA makes clear claims of notability, which I presume will shortly be sourced, and the MHA are referenced under under McGillicuddy articles (not a plea that this is no worse than others, but one that this is an adjunct to established articles) -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Could you please help me out with one example? I just don't see it. I'm not asking for a claim of notability that is sourced (or source-able). Just a claim of notability. -- Swerdnaneb 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've rewritten the opening paragraph to make one or two of its claims to notability a bit clearer. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Well-known NZ organisations. Will provide newspaper citation etc if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very well know and important. The McGillicuddy Serious Party even got 0.61% of all votes cast in the 1993 general election. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Alf's; strong keep for McGillicuddys. These should be kept, they are both well-known organisations in NZ with a very-high public profile. I have given sources from newspaper articles to support all the claims about battling a wide range of NZ groups, and to support Alf's notabliity. I will do the same for the McGHA, when I have time. PavillonE —Preceding comment was added at 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to the McGillicuddy Highland Army page, I think these should prove their notability. PavillonE (talk) 08:30, 11 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. Weight of argument and consensus is for deletion.--

talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Woodmont Hills Church of Christ

Woodmont Hills Church of Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Highly non-notable 20-year-old church in Nashville, a city of over 1,000 churches. The notability claims are: they play music, they have women, they shared their worship space with another church for a year. There is nothing whatsoever notable about this church. SmashvilleBONK! 22:40, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Big Brother 10 (US)

Big Brother 10 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

There is no need of this page yet. Big Brother 10 has not been confirmed by CBS. This article should be deleted because the confirmed

Big Brother 9 (US) will begin to air in Feb. 2008. Yep the ninth edition hasn't even premiered so why have an unsourced, one line article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (illustrator)

Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biographical article on an illustrator that I do not believe meets the notability criteria of

PROD, so comes here for discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: You added a PROD originally because you felt that there were no "reliable, third-party published sources" in the article. I removed the PROD because I felt that there already were two such references which were both independent of the subject and reliable as far as the claims which were made. It is certainly possible that adding {{fact}} tags may solve nothing, but since they have never been added to this article, there is simply no way to tell. The
talk) 23:23, 6 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 withdrawn. Deli nk (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Claret

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

Withdrawn the afd in favour of a rfc on the unsourced info. --Neon white (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable according to

WP:MUSIC and suffers from one editor inflating the article with original research. Neon white (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP'', Chantal Claret has also co-hosted an MTV2 Dew Circuit Showcase without the band http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mtv2-dew-circuit-showcase/1570914601 and had a monthly advice column in Alternative Press, which I believe merits it's own page. Here is a link to the Playboy, NY TIMES, and even a blender article where she is by herself without the band http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=1862 which "no one" could convientiantly find. http://morningwoodrocks.com/images/press/mwplayboy.JPG ,http://morningwoodrocks.com/images/press/mwnytfeat.jpg which is right on the morningwoodrocks.com press page. This is getting ridiculous and NEONWHITE is being totally hypocrytical, when some of his own pages have no references. Give it up and leave it alone.(talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is no ownership of articles on wikipedia, i do not own any articles, articles were she speaks primarily about the band don't make her notable as an individual, that has been said many times. There is a lack of non-trivial second party sources which are required if you read
WP:BIO. This is why the article remians largely unsourced OR. None of these fit that criteria. --Neon white (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I can't find any reliable sources about her seperate from the band. Most of the sources are about the band and therefore more appropriate for that page and there is a lack of second or third party sources. --Neon white (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Maybe neon should read the "Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles page again and learn how to do research on the Net. I'll follow right down the list. 1.) Ms Claret has been the subject of newspaper and magazine interviews from the NY Times on down to Maxim and Playboy Magazine. These are not reviews or group interviews, they are solo interviews with Ms. Claret. 2.) Morningwood has had a #30 chart hit with Nth Degree in 2006. 4.) Morningwood had a national tour in 2006 that included appearances in the US, England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan and other countries. 6.) The group includes Pedro Yanowitz who played drums for the Wallflowers and other groups. 10.) Morningwood has appeared on the Tonight Show, and The David Letterman Show twice among other TV appearances, including hour long performance and interview shows in Spain. 11.)Both Jetsetter and th Degree have been on national rotation lists. This action is merely an amping up of a bullying edit war. He repeatedly deletes the unimportant majority of the article claiming it not to be verified, while he leaves in significant information that has no verification at all. It is just a little power trip. 68.54.15.213 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither playboy, ny times or maxim's website nor google can find any mention of any article in either newspaper or magazine and none of these are used on the page or have been provide depsite requests. Any interviews or articles available relate specifically to the band and she is not the subject of the article as specified in the criteria. Morningwood's notability has absolutely no relevance to this discussion this is about her article not the band's article which is seperate. The article is largely based on original research and current has no sources for notability that is why it is here, no other reason. --Neon white (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lead in a notable band, plenty of major interviews. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interviews can't really be used as a source for notability. It's an exception to point 1 on
    WP:BIO it specifies secondary source material which is reliable--Neon white (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • CommentPoint 1 of
    WP:MUSIC does not disqualify those sources. Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. The aforementioned sources are not press releases or adverts, which is what point 1 is concerned with. Blender article (a little on the trivial side),NY times article (which is certainly beyond "trivial") Billboard article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's exactly what point 1 excepts, trivia, press releases and promotional interviews. The billboard article is about the band which has been pointed isnt relevant to her notability. The other two are very trivial. --Neon white (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It took seconds to find 75 references to Chantal and the NY Times, including an interview - here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/fashion/sundaystyles/08nite.html and I could drag in references for everything else mentioned above by anonymous, since he/she seems to have read them or about them on the Morningwood message boards. I don't post any so called original research on the Chantal Claret article, I merely try to restore what vandals remove or screw up. Could you tell me why you don't just put back the banner I put up explaining that the article had no references and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, blah, blah, blah? I inserted it on the weekend and somebody else deleted it. It seems to me that using that disclaimer would solve your particular problems. Or is it that you don't want this issue 'solved'? DrDelos (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me add this to the notability list above by anonymous: Wikipedai says a person is considered notable if: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above". Chantal has co-composer credits with the US Copyright office for Nth Degree which, in addition to being a hit for Morningwood, was used in several TV commercials including a series for Mercury automobiles. That alone makes her notable according to Wikipedia's own criteria. DrDelos (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NY Times article is trivial at best and as the policy says 'non-trivial published works' and it's arguable whether she is the subject of the article and there is very little contained it the article that could practically be used in the article to determine notability. The guidelines mentioned above are for 'composers and lyricists' not for 'musicians and ensembles'. You have restored alot of OR on the article (anything that isn't based on a citation is OR, such as uncited personal interests), but the issue here is whether there is enough notability. I think what you are refering to is a 'refimprove' tag. These in no way allow an article to use unsourced material, they are used to alert editors that the article needs improving which has been done in removing the OR. As i said above the song is notable to Morningwood not to her and is not relevant to her individual notability. If she is only notable as a member of Morningwood and the article is of no great length then the usual practice is to merge them. --Neon white (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' The NYT link was to demonstrate that you are either not capable or not willing to research for yourself the references that back up everything mentioned above. It demonstrated that. It I provided the references for the other statements above, I'm certain you could and would find fault with all of them. I wonder if you look at any articles other than the ones you are fighting with people over. There are hundreds of thousands of pages with millions of unsubstantiated, unverified and unverifiable, off the cuff paragraphs and they stay online unchallenged for years. BTW, Chantal has writing credits for a lot more published music and lyrics than just Nth Degree. She has her own rock group entirely apart from Morningwood with no members of Morningwood participating. She also appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and had 8 minute or so segment of her talking to the camera by herself. The video is online. And to repeat, all I did to the article is remove your vandalism. I did not post OR and you would know that if you would do the research on the history of the article. DrDelos (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' This page is for discussion about the notability of this article only no other article is relevant, it is not for personal attacks or points scoring. I was aware of the article but considered it trivial and not really about her as the major subject. So far this is the only source for notability provided if you can provide others then do so. It is the job of the editor who includes the material to provide a citation and no-one elses this is specified in policy. Removing unsourced material does not constitute as vandalism , this is a personal attack which you have been warned about several times. --Neon white (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I too was unable to find any reliable sources; this artist gets a lot of ghits, but all of it is either in the context of Morningwood (which is notable) or highly trivial or self-promotional in nature (interviews, fan-pages, short blurbs from NN music webpages). Her one apparent claim to having her own page is her partial songwriting credit on the one song mentioned above. As I see it, by the spirit of the policy, that's just not enough. A separate page would, by necessity, either be a stub containing her one point of notability, or a collection of
    WP:OR and impossible to reference fancruft. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have actually questioned that criteria on
WP:MUSIC for clarification as to what it actually means, it can't possibly refer to anyone who has a writing credit for a notable band as that would potentially include some people of very little note. My suggestion is to merge with morningwood as i don't believe there will be that much sourced info available to make anything other than a stub after all the unsourced stuff is removed. --Neon white (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete, disagreement in discussion exists over whether the sources are sufficient and reliable enough for the article. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Effect

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

The

boy00 @940, i.e. 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

all others either contain the word "blog" in URLs or allow user contribs. Comments were not counted as contribs. For example, if it had been there,
boy00 @61, i.e. 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Google has a list (an actual file) of URLs that are "in the sandbox" and the observed effect is not merely because of age-based
    Systematic bias
    .
  2. Other websites (Yahoo!, MSN, etc.) use dramatically different sorting algorithms/don't have sandboxes that produce dramatic discrepancies.
I feel that the article in its current state might be construed as
boy00 @193, i.e. 03:38, 6 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. -

Mailer Diablo 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mary Evelyn Parker

Mary Evelyn Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Artiucle by Billy Hathorn citing Billy Hathorn's Masters dissertation, and lacking any obvious claim of notability per

WP:BIO. Section titles like "A real political player" are not the stuff of encyclopaedias, but of local history sites. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep. I've seen a lot of this guy's articles so I'm hesitant to all out keep it...I dunno...this person was State Treasurer. But...Billy references himself... --SmashvilleBONK! 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources should be strengthened, sure. But we don't delete articles for poorly phrased sections, and a state treasurer is notable. — Amcaja (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we can find a source for Louisiana's first woman treasurer. Found a couple of sources. spryde | talk 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as loath as I am to endorse an article by someone who won't even show up for an RFCU. State treasurers are notable positions. These are the articles we want him to create; we just don't want him using COI sourcing including his own unpublished writing. I am afraid that getting Billy to stop is going to require sterner stuff than just deleting more of his articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, elected state treasurer (19 years), first woman state treasurer in LA, former Democratic national committeewoman, campaign strategist for Governor John McKeithen, in Who's Who in America, member of Louisiana Political Hall of Fame, "Woman of the Year" in Baton Rouge, interesting life story. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability asserted as first woman state treasurer and by other means as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please explain the basis for considering it a notable position.DGG (talk) 23:27, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Griffon

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

All the references in this article seem to be either to related facts, not the subject, or are not independent. I don't see any evidence of provable significance. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Keep of course. He is the main statewide talk radio host in Louisiana. I could not find out how many listeners he has for his 2-hour morning daily program. There is no other host in the state who can match his audience. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Analysis, leaning towards keep An editor who I've come across, but is not my friend, told me about this AFD (I presume for a neutral, unbiased analysis). This is a radio announcer which I never heard of but broadcasting is not my expertise. Besides sources which may not be independent, there are 2 independent sources cited in the article, a TV station and a newspaper. The 3 basic criteria seem to be covered [6]. One of the sources lists his broadcast as carried in 10 stations. This increases his notability. AFD discussions tend to shy away from mentioning similar articles that were or were not deleted. However,

talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you, Archtransit, I would have included more material in the article, but I did not have anything else. Whatever else I may have found would have taken a lot of time and involved original research, which causes articles to be rejected. Yes, he is on ten stations, Monroe, Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette, Natchez, MS, but I don't have the other five cities. He is statewide, and his associate, Ruth Ulrich, in 2005 interviewed Secretary of the Treasury John Snow on the program. I will add that info. Apparently, the person rejecting this article thinks he is only on the Monroe station, and even if that were his only station, he would still cover the northeast one-fourth of LA.

March 4, 2005 Secretary Snow on Social Security US Treasury Secretary John Snow visits with Ruth Ulrich of the Moon Griffon Show, KMLB, Monroe, LA.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep .. The radio stations themselves can be cited. References should not have to be bits of paper. Victuallers (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. I have included in the article the ten radio stations on which Moon Griffon is broadcast. The opponent of this article seemed to think that Griffon broadcast only in Monroe.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:42, 10 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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas Catholic Primary School, Jockey Road

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

No information on notability. — Yavoh 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Honey --JForget 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honey dipper

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

Dictionary def., not notable, unsourced

talk) 21:12, 5 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. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred C. McClanahan

Fred C. McClanahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An obituary form a prolific writer of obituaries. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Candidate for senate doesn't make him notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A memorial article about an apparently fine individual who fails
    WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a nice bloke, who had a moderately interesting career, but currently notability is not demonstrated. Happy to amend if multiple non trivial references to him are found in reliable sources. Just drop me a line to my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 12 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. — Scientizzle 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny D. Scott

Danny D. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another of User:Billy Hathorn's obituaries. Small town publisher, no wider significance. Please can someone help me get through to this user as he has more deleted articles to his name than any other non-vandal I can think of. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men (song)

Of Mice and Men (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this single is notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 5 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) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Chipinaw

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

Originally nominated for

WP:PROD by Stormbay (talk · contribs) for "non notable children's summer camp" 24fan24 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article covers a children's summer camp which, no doubt, does a fine job. However, there is nothing in their activities and body of work that should be considered notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, unsourced.
    talk) 00:02, 6 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. Mr.Z-man 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die Dead Enough

Die Dead Enough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this single is notable.J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Psycho

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

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the King

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

Notable band, but I can see no reason that this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crush 'em

Crush 'em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but I can see no reason that it is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 5 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of indoor malls in Barrie

List of indoor malls in Barrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, seemingly orphaned, only one mall has a link. Redundant content, given the templates right below it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant mention that they're only 3 malls in the area on each of the mall's articles. I know there's only 1 mall article at the moment, I meant in future. My bad. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the
Barrie, Ontario article. Perhaps under economy or buildings and structures? vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 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. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia (Megadeth song)

Insomnia (Megadeth song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but I can't see any reason this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Man

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

Notable band, but I can see no reason or sources as to why this is a notable single. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Secret Place

A Secret Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not appear to be a notable single. I can see no sources or claims to fame. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Honest (song)

Almost Honest (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable band, but does not seem to be a notable single. I can see no sources or claims to fame. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 5 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. Rigadoun (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreclosure of a Dream

Foreclosure of a Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but does not seem to be a notable single. I can see no real sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 5 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 Notability not established.

Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Kids Across America

Kids Across America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization using no references. Article is also promotional in its tone. D-rew (talk) 17:58, 5 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 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petezza

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

Not surprisingly, I couldn't find any

PROD, also by a SPA. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liar (Megadeth song)

Liar (Megadeth song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but is it a notable single? I see no sources or reason it could be considered notable, but the article does contain original research and a potential BLP violation.J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Springs Christian Academy

Coral Springs Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no sources Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 5 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. Just saying "Its notable, sources exist" is not the same as actually providing sources to prove notability. Mr.Z-man 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sokker Manager

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

Not notable, no third party sources, orphan

talk) 20:01, 5 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) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rope Trick

The Rope Trick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film with no claims of notability and no sources to indicate that it might be notable. It does have an entry at imdb, but there's not much there but that this is a short. Corvus cornixtalk 19:56, 5 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. — Scientizzle 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane (Megadeth song)

Mary Jane (Megadeth song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Notable band, but does not appear ot be a notable single. I can see no reason to consider it notable, and can find no sources that talk of it in depth. Article contains original research. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 5 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 to

Talk!) 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Anarchy in the U.K. (Megadeth song)

Anarchy in the U.K. (Megadeth song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Despite being a single from a notable band, I cannot see why it should have its own article. I can find no reliable sources which talk about it in depth, and it does not appear to be particuarly notable in any way. Also, as a cover, is it not common practice to merge into the article about the original song anyway? J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 5 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 List of Charmed episodes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Fiends

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

This is an article on a single episode of the notable television program Charmed. It is typical of all of the articles in Category:Charmed episodes:

  • It contains no lede (most articles have a perfunctory lede, but a few are missing one altogether).
  • It consists primarily of plot summary and trivia, with very little (if any) real-world context.
  • The plot summary, lacking context, is useless to anyone not familiar with the program and with previous episodes.
  • It references zero sources, let alone reliable third-party sources.

This AfD applies only to this single article; per Template:AfD footer (multiple), "...for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." There was little point in going to the trouble of a mass nomination before seeing if deletion was feasible. Powers T 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: most of these articles don't have talk pages, and those that do lack any WikiProject notices; I assume then that there is no WikiProject under whose jurisdiction these articles fall. If that is incorrect, I would be happy to notify the relevant WikiProject. Powers T 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to
    WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles, which says the solution to articles like this is to "consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)" and to "avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." Missing a lead section is not a deletion reason, as such a problem can be fixed, amazingly enough, by adding a lead section! Lack of context is solved by merging with articles which provide that context (or by providing such context in the lead section). Lack of sources is solved by providing sources, which undoubtedly exist: The Book of Shadows: The Unofficial Charmed Companion, The Book of Three, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three, would certainly be places to look for detailed information about the series, in addition to primary sources such as the show itself and DVD commentary. DHowell (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to List of Charmed episodes. There looks to be a sentence or two worth merging but probably not more than that. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Connor Lee

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

British child actor, but not yet notable unfortunately, per: [11] Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable - no coverage outside of Emmrdale. --carelesshx talk 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time. Might be notable once he has more credits. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cute kid, but simply not notable enough at this time. Perhaps, as stated above, when he gets a few more credits under his belt. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:35, 8 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. -

Mailer Diablo 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Braden Walkes

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

Child actor, but not notable yet. See: [12]. Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 5 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchus-D

Bacchus-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Article contains no assertion of

WP:CORP, does not have sources independent of the subject. WLU (talk) 19:11, 5 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) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Webb (British actor)

Lucy Webb (British actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A young actor, who unfortunately is not notable enough for inclusion. See: [13] . Thanks, Delete. Lawrence Cohen 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as per nom. 3 years old!! Good grief. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable as a biographical figure, mainly because of her youth. Perhaps a brief mention at
    Jon Dingle would compensate for the deletion of this page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:18, 6 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 JoshuaZ (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layla and Logan Wheeler

Layla and Logan Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Young actors, not notable enough for inclusion. See: [14] and [15] - note that on the Logan Wheeler, there are a lot of hits, as its apparently a common name. Ignore all the bits related to World War I veterans, obviously. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable
    talk) 18:33, 13 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 JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa & Hannah Yadrick

AfDs for this article:
Alyssa & Hannah Yadrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Young actors, not notable enough for inclusion. See: [16] and [17]. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable
    talk) 18:35, 13 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. -

Mailer Diablo 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

David Perrett

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

Not notable.

talk) 18:58, 5 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 multiple appearances, and a young age at which to get a contract, they meet

WP:BIO
. 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Olivia and Ava White

Olivia and Ava White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately, these twins simply are not notable yet. Searches for each of their names return no substantial notability evidence. See: [18] and [19]. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as per nom and common sense. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a google search and got several results. They have starred in several television shows which has met keep criteria for other AfD's. [20]. Olivia and Ava are currently contract players on Days of our Lives which is far more notable than what "kept" the Ashlee Holland article.
    talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can you share the links and evidence of notability you found? Being contracted to a TV show isn't evidence of notability. Lawrence Cohen 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what has been decided in the past. Ashlee Holland was kept because of that. Her win on IWBASS gave her a contract and she got to keep her page. As for Olivia and Ava, you have to google them together. Here's the search results I got [21]
talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional links that prove notability [22] Quote: Ava, along with her twin sister Olivia, is part of the youngest set of twins to be offered a contract for a daytime soap opera. Out of all the young children on soaps, they hold the distinction of being the youngest ever offered a contract. That's notable if you ask me. Yes, the article needs expansion, but it meets requirements to keep.
talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That is still awfully short on being notable, given their age and lack of additional independent coverage. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were 300,000 hits on Google. Just because the article needs expanding doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. I found external links using the correct search terms. They starred in What about Brian, star currently on contract on Days of our Lives, and have other credits including Veronica Mars and Ghost Whisperer. Your search was limited which caused you to erroneously assume they were not notable. A search of their names without limitations yield a far larger result.
talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Searching for their names without "quotes" yields a tremendous number of unrelated hits. Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I search my way, you search yours. Regardless, I've stated my case and this is getting redundant. Their (google's) first pages include solely references to Olivia and Ava, together like the Olsen Twins, not individual. The article is also not about the individuals but the pair. Your search was flawed searching only one name and adding Days of our Lives. My search yielded what it did. Either way, I've said the last of this as at this time anything more will only be redundancy upon redundancy.
talk) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (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

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. Waggers (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line

Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been subject to numerous reversions by anonymous users, to determine whether it deserves to be an article in its own right, or a redirect to

(talk) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you referring to the article about CrossCountry (the train operator) or Cross Country Route (about the Bristol-Birmingham-Derby line)? --RFBailey (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The service is mentioned near the top of
Gloucester to Newport Line, Cross Country Route and Midland Main Line (from west to east). Those cover the infrastructural aspects of the journey. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: It now reads that it is a rail route, rather than a line. Therefore I see no reason for deletion but perhaps a rename to Cardiff Central to Nottingham route. 128.240.229.65 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Creator: I don't see why it should be deleted becuase it's been changed to read a route/service not a line, which it is.
    Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note:
    Cardiff Central to Nottingham Route. --RFBailey (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's a bad idea for various reasons. First, the general Wikipedia practice is to split content from articles once they grow too large, not to pre-empt this. The CrossCountry article certainly hasn't grown too large yet. Second, where would you stop? Having pages for occasional services that run once a day, or (worse) once a week in summer? What about other operators--why just this one? This is a slippery slope which, quite frankly, I don't want to see us go down. --RFBailey (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, such a practice would split information away from where people are likely to look for it, and result in needless duplication — already, much of the disputed article’s content is a redundant summary of the geography and transport links of Wales and the Midlands. David Arthur (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - services change more often than lines and if we went down this route, there would be too much unnecessary duplication. Merge it into CrossCountry. WelshBloke (talk) 10:14, 11 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. — Scientizzle 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Partners

E3 Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be more of a POV advertisement than an article Mcwatson (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe rename as Evangecube and trim drastically? Surprisingly, the 3x3 inch doodad E3 sells gets a lot of Ghits, so it may possibly be notable enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. No prejudice against a new page on Evangecube, however. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral after stubification, !vote may change again after further expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with a stub. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the stub as it stands now does not assert notability. Pagrashtak 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pagrashtak is correct. Too stubified. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor (with an apparent conflict of interest) has made some changes, but the article is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Perhaps someone else from WikiProject Christianity might now lend a hand. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some minor cleanup, but the article reads like an advertisement and uses second-person. It still doesn't assert notability. Pagrashtak 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned the second-person language. Pagrashtak 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't look to be anything here that would help to create an encyclopedic article. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the Evangacube which might well be notable but this still reads like a company press release. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything noteable or noteworthy about this organisation that sets them apart from literally millions of others dong similar things for every religion. Plus it reads like it was written by an insider. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Aerospace Corporation

Union Aerospace Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Doom game articles. As such, and this is duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sources on page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The UAC is a very important plot element in the Doom games. I say keep, but we do need to cite some sources. - XX55XX (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because otherwise it is important to the plot of Doom but not notable enough to have its own article per
WP:RS. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 10 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 appears to be that sources used in this debate and in article establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

This article went through an AfD and was deleted once before. Its reincarnation still seems to lack 3rd-party sourced notability. It is my understanding that existence in not sufficient to establish notability for a film. Its claimed notability, fictionalized snuff films, strikes me as more of a negative than a +: a desperate attention-getting strategy that has not yet worked. At present, no one is served by this entry but the film-maker. Hence I nominate for its second deletion. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prior AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poughkeepsie Tapes and was closed as "delete" on 8 Aug 2006. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The film seems to exist, though it has never gone into general release. The snuff aspect is apparently a fiction. According to cinematical.com, the film was shown once at least once at a film festival. There is a possibility of general release in 2008, but since the whole operation seems a bit marginal,
    WP:CRYSTAL surely applies to this film's future career. I believe it doesn't meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I saw The Mist over the weekend at the theaters and they had a preview for this movie, so it is an actual film that appears to have theatrical notability. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, the director is going on to do other things with established stars (Dania Ramirez, Jay Hernandez). Does http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tixSYS/2007/filmguide/eventnote.php?EventNumber=4542 count as a reliable source? Here, a NY Times source. Corvus cornixtalk 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the film is advertised as being real, so having an article that refutes the videotape authenticity is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can you explain what you mean by "refutes the videotape authenticity"? --Pleasantville (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The film is being presented as a documentary, but it's really a sham documentary like The Blair Witch Project. We need a reliable source which makes it clear that this is fiction. Corvus cornixtalk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, none of the "keep" opinions have demonstrated that this film meets any of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The director's other work, for example, is irrelevant to this discussion because notability is not inherited. The film festival linking demonstrates existence as does the NY Times reprint of their press release but no one here has questioned the existence of the film. Not everything that is real gets covered in the encyclopedia. If this is the best evidence available, I am leaning toward a delete opinion. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film is not yet widely distributed and therefore has not yet received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. However, there is a teaser trailer indicating that it will have a wide release via MGM (which is, as noted, being shown before 'The Mist' in theatres). Common sense dictates that it will almost certainly have full length reviews in the future when it is widely distributed. Deleting it is definitely justifiable at this point in time, but I think keeping a rewritten article with a simple description of the plot would be suitable since it will definitely meet the notability requirements described above in the near future. Of course, it would also be nice to have some sources.70.171.125.215 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ample sources, so I added a few. Marginal Notability, but sufficient for inclusion, particularly since it was shown at a major film festival. Needs expansion, not deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are the same sources mentioned before. They demonstrate existence, not notability. Remember that plot summaries and other directory-listing materials come from the movie producers and fail the independence requirement of sourcing. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk)
The NYT does not publish every PR it receives and Tribecca does not show every film submitted. I thiink this shows the film has received sufficient notice for inclusion. Dhaluza (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film was advertised with 'Awake' on November 30th. Target release is noted on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010271/">IMDB</a> as February 8th, 2008. Film is ficitionalized, ala 'Blair Witch Project'.
  • Keep Just watched it, getting wide release Nick Catalano contrib talk 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every new film deserves an article. We should just be careful what information is put on (saying that it's real and stuff).-
    Phil 15:45, 10 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 Note that this keep is not to be construed as an endorsement of the name "Gageo Reef". JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gageo Reef

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

I initially tagged the article for notability on November 19th, 2007 and informed the editors of the page of my tagging. I asked them to add more information to pass the guidelines for notability. After two weeks, nothing on the page changed, so I proposed deletion on December 3, 2007 and notified the founding editor. That same day DGC deleted the proposed deletion template saying that the article was an adequate stub. I disagree. As I stated in my proposed deletion, there is nothing in the article that shows any notability. As the article states, it is an uninhabited, submerged rock off the coast of South Korea. This is the only significant fact given. It is also said to have been discovered by the Hyuga without reference, but nothing on the Hyuga page mentions the reef or its importance. I question whether that fact is even true. After a thorough internet search, I could find no page to validate its notability or even give any information about the reef. Seeing that with that amount of work, I could still not verify notability and that the original authors seem to not care enough, I believe this article should be deleted. --17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Jdcaust (talk)

  • This looks like case of dueling articles and redirects. The reef is in disputed waters and the name of the reef is also disputed. Before it was redirected in November, Rixiang Reef was Chinese rock, also called Gageo Reef, in disputed waters.[24]. The S. Koreans want it called Gageo Reef. The Chinese call it Rixiang Reef. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you. That makes sense. I think we should keep the article, although it seems like its ability to grow may be limited. If I can find sourcing for the competing ownership claims, I'll add that information as well. Xymmax (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Waggers (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Square

North Shore Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page makes no claim to notability of this mall. No sources could be found, not even an official website (which is surprising for a mall of this size). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to write a better article, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. And so what if other super regional malls have pages?"
    Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Can you be more specific on your concerns of reliability? If you review this link, it seems to indicate that the data is reviewed for accuracy and that a membership fee is required for a listing. Given the subscription fee, I think its safe to assume that a mall owner/manager would submit accurate data about their facility. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means that it is a primary source, not a secondary source which is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having investigated this place, I cannot recall ever having found a web of ownerships more complex than this one! (see the goofy Ref. I added to the Article)(ahem they may be goofy ... but they satisfy
    WP:RS). I for one, would like to see where this trail ends before the Article is decided notable or not, as that complexity alone may proove the Mall notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. This closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the consensus among other users that opening a new AfD the same day that the previous one closed is a little too soon. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure endorsed. Seriously, the world will not end tomorrow. Give it a few days before nominating again. Or just redirect it and see if anyone cares.—Random832 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo in pop culture

AfDs for this article:
Tokyo in pop culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This survived a previous deletion discussion by deleting a long list of trivia. What remains is an almost exact duplication of the Tokyo in popular media section from the article Tokyo. This fork now exists only to have a new IPC list appended. I have merged the one new sentence back into the Tokyo article for consideration by editors there. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do I understand correctly that the prior Afd ended today? Could you elaborate further as to why a second Afd is required at this time? Xymmax (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. I haven't heard of a justification for this highly unusual nomination. Xymmax (talk) 22:17, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Disco Aroma by Decibel

Disco Aroma by Decibel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band has no article, album has no verifiable notability, fails

WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 5 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) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On to Inverno Samba

On to Inverno Samba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, band doesn't even have a page, can't meet

WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 5 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) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Game 7

Game 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Prodded, prod removed by creator. 99% sure this is a hoax, google gives nothing back about a computer game, and none of the outlandish commests are backed up by the sources. And even if it does exist, it's also blatant spam (kind of wish I tried tagging it as such before coming here...). UsaSatsui (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as had already been speedy deleted by DJ Clayworth. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McConnel

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

Unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:49, 5 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. — Scientizzle 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Daniels (politician)

Ross Daniels (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, major party candidate for a national legislature. Corvus cornixtalk 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard Wikipedia practice for unelected major party candidates in federal elections is to merge them into an omnibus list in the Labor Party candidates, 2007 Australian federal election format. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Citations are to political organisations, rather than reportage by neutral media. The article is also a bit of a puff piece. Andjam (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Nevermind unsuccessful ballot he was the Chairperson of Amnesty International's International Executive Committee from 1993 to 1997.[1][2] Victuallers (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not per above, but because he was an officer of Amnesty International and appeared on national media for them. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlackStar by Inverno Samba

BlackStar by Inverno Samba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, can't meet

WP:MUSIC currently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 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) 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Endless Sum of an Ancient Sun

The Endless Sum of an Ancient Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of verifiable notability, not exactly

WP:MUSIC-worthy The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I Sold Your Soul... Happy?

I Sold Your Soul... Happy? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, nowhere near meeting

WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Page

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

Sole claim to notability is being an unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not very notable and there are a number of other Sue Page's out there that are all sort of notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of black metal bands

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

There's no need for this list when

Funeral 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Are you serious? I think you need to read black metal. Kameejl (Talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what I've heard, most Wikipedia readers tend to find these list articles more user-friendly than categories i.e. many readers are more likely to check these lists than categories. All this list need is sources and it's fine.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you say that the List of black metal bands is not going to be developed further, then I would have said delete. As of now, the category is much better than the list; its concise, bands are grouped into country-wise subcategories. But, the category will stay that way. On the other hand, the list can be developed along the lines of some of these lists Category:Lists. They can convey band specific information, which I doubt can be integrated into a category. Of course work needs to be done; but also, there are no featured categories, right? Weltanschaunng 03:08, 9 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) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Torossian

AfDs for this article:
Rose Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Token Liberal candidate in a very safe Labor seat. Dlw22 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Political candidates are not necessarily notable just for being a candidate. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, and these articles are in proliferation just at the moment. Completely non-notable. Frickeg (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete.This is Rose Torossian. I am happy to provide further evidence to support my biographical information so that it may remain on wikipedia. Wikipedia states that a politician is the following:

"...people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, right of inheritance (see also: divine right) or other means." Wikipedia.

I seeked the position of a politician by means of an election.

Bold textConsidered a politicianBold text
"A person who is active in party politics.

Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor can be termed a politician. For example, a worker participating in office politics is a politician, but only so far as the operations of his or her workplace are concerned." Wikipedia

I am currently active in party politics and I influenced a group of opinions in my favour when I was a Liberal Candidate for Fowler. Rose Torossian 11:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi Rose. I've shifted your comment down the page to reflect the order of the comments made here. I simply point out that being involved in politics and being a political candidate doesn't make a person sufficiently notable. I refer you to
    WP:BIO
    :
  • Politicians:
    • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
    • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
    • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

Dlw22 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's no doubt she's a politician, but politicians aren't necessarily notable. I would also like to point out that, should she win the election or become notable in some other way (hopefully not through election fraud), the article can be recreated. It's not "now or never". --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:06, 7 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 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yechida Satori

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

No context, no notability, no verifiability, prod removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 5 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 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese swords

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

Superseded by Category:Chinese swords, lacks any information about the weapons mentioned that would be useful in a list. Burzmali (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons above:

Japanese swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
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. Mr.Z-man 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyr (journal)

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

dab (𒁳) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I've done some swapping around to where more of the notable figures are in the introduction now, if that helps at all. I think the journal is mainly only relevant in
Germanic neopaganism, which is what it largely involves so I added a bit about that. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:46, 9 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 as per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kateryna Karsak

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

Completing unfinished nom by User:Rtphokie. For some reason, Twinkle didn't finish the process; Twinkle has been acting very odd today. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:55, 5 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) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin United Nations Association

University of Texas at Austin United Nations Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university club, no different to similar groups at universities and colleges all over th world. Emeraude (talk) 15:29, 5 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 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance: Fall of Man weapons

Resistance: Fall of Man weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of fictional weapons. Wikipedia is

not a game guide. Pagrashtak 15:29, 5 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. WjBscribe 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Love Airways

Trans Love Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no reliable sources (only sources listed are a webzine, band's website, and a myspace account)

talk) 15:26, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

MagSec

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

Non-notable fictional weapon that does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Content is too detailed and game guide-ish for merging. Pagrashtak 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:25, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

ARC (Scientology)

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

Article does not assert the notability of its topic. Written primarily with in-universe, Church of Scientology jargon. Only uses primary sources (L. Ron Hubbard), and no secondary sources, and has been tagged as such since August 2007, with no improvements since then. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). Cirt (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, expansion on delete reasoning -- If sources cannot be found outside of Hubbard's own writings and sufficient time has been given with the article tagged for sources to be provided, then the best place for this sort of information is a Church of Scientology website. Notability is not established here. We would not write an entire article on the Bible just referencing the Bible itself. We may quote from it, sure, or reference portions of it, but not the entire thing. Lack of any other sources/mention = lack of notability in this case. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete unless some outside sources are available. Or smerge into one of the other Scientology articles. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sourcing and lack of notability.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:32, 6 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. WjBscribe 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn to diversity

Drawn to diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable student organization. The profusion of external links, as usual, raises suspicions about the motives of the authors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sources on page, pure horseradish. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. a single news article found is from the university student newspaper which is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close and redirect to Cloverfield. Until such time as there is enough verifiable information to support a separate article, any information should be added to the movie article as fictional corporations are rarely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagruato corporation

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

Didn't know what to speedy this under, appears to just be a quote of some sort. 558 ghits; possibly a advertising head for a movie. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't look worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Cloverfield- The Tagruato Corporation is part of the alternative reality game/viral marketing thingummy that's going on for the Cloverfield movie, although it isn't currently mentioned in the Cloverfield page- I'll see if I can get my other half onto that, he should know where to find the references. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:20, 7 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lochan Singh

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

Possibly a hoax, as no

notable if they were true, and I will withdraw the nomination if proper sources can be found, but there is no evidence for any of the claims made. Example: article claims that he was the first Post Master general, something that should be easy to substantiate, yet no non-wiki sources can be found to back this up, not surprising either since the Indian Postal Service celebrated its 150th anniversary recently. Cheers, CP 14:48, 5 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CETI Patterson Power Cell

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

Clearly a type of

talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The article cites references and does not make any unreasonable claims: it gives a strong impression that the thing doesn't work. The thing has been discussed in a number of sources and therefore seems to be notable. By the way, cold fusion is not a perpetual motion machine. Fusion gets energy by changing deuterium into helium. The deuterium is the fuel, which eventually gets used up. Fusion is a well-known scientifically established source of energy. "Cold" fusion has not been shown to be possible, but it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "perpetual motion machine". --Coppertwig (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to delete, but Keep per notability (above). I deleted a bunch of OR and redundancy and claims that there is some connection between cold fusion and perpetual motion.... that is, most of the article. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as cold fusion uses a fuel for fusion, clearly not a perpetual motion machine. Unless a star is also a perpetual motion machine. Or even a coal fired powerplant. (more energy is produced consuming coal, that is used to feed coal into the boilers). 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the 'inventor' of this thing says it's not a cold fusion device. The fact is, it's not anything but a figment of his imagination. Nick mallory (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CETI avoids the term "cold fusion" to avoid the stigma associated with the
    Pons and Fleishman debacle, and because they claim not to know whether the alleged nuclear reactions are in fact "fusion." The bottom line is that they state that some form of nuclear reaction is the source of the energy, and nuclear fuel is (or would be) consumed in a finite amount of time. St3vo (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep. Appears to just about satisfy notability criteria. Unclear on its face if it's perpetual motion or a variant on cold fusion, but either way fringe science and the balance of the article must reflect this (and, whilst much improved, I think further edits are required to this effect). LeContexte (talk) 11:04, 11 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) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinsburg Mall

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

Non-notable mall in West Virginia, fails

WP:RS. A search for sources online turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:40, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mizuno experiment

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

Mizuno, while being famous in cold fusion circles for three papers that made it into obscure mainstream publications, has not done anything of

talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete as a non-notable factory. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gyandzha Auto Plant

Gyandzha Auto Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Unsourced, no importance, short stub with no growth or change since started 18 months ago, near-orphan

talk) 13:51, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

MoMa

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

Only assertion of notability is vocals on a single album released in Mexico, and even that not verifiable. Not sure this meets

WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 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 to Max Baucus. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip E. Baucus

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

A US Marine corporal killed in action in Iraq. Only claim to notability is his relation to a US Senator. Jmlk17 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge important info into Max_Baucus Red Fiona (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the article, I agree with the proposed merge. The death was widely reported in the news, and seemed poised to take on a larger political significance, but this did not materialize - other than this person's famous relation, he is no more significant than any other U.S. casualty in Iraq.
    T
    15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per bd2412, the article's creator. --A. B. (talk) 18:03, 5 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plasda

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

I've tried and failed to find how this album or its creator are sufficiently notable to meet

WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 5 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Stanley

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

She was the wife of two notable actors, but, as stated in the article, she failed to achieve any notability of her own. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, she accomplished little to nothing on her own. However, would Monica Lewinski be famous at all had she not slept with Bill Clinton? No, Louise Stanley on her own is not known at all, short of a few excerpts here and there. But, she was an actress, and she was married to two fairly famous actors. That's more than Monica has done. In my opinion, do not delete.

  • Comment. A lack of sources in the article is not a reason to delete. --
    talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • My comment and that of another editor appear to have been accidently deleted. I tried to roll back to that version, with the thought of then cutting and pasting the subsequent comments back in place. I haven't been able to get that to work, so I am just pasting our missing comments here below. Xymmax
  • Keep. Minor notability, but still notable. Xymmax (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTINHERITED
    . She may have had several notable husbands, but that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself admits that she is a "little known actress" with only "minor roles" that "never lifted her to stardom". What more do you need? A sign that says "DELETE ME!"? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Little known" is not the same as "not notable". All that can be claimed is that the article has not sufficiently established the subject's notability. I think that it has, but of course your mileage may vary. --
    talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Out of curiosity, I ran her name through the Chicago Tribune's electronic archives, which I can access through my university library. I don't think she was quite as obscure as the present article may suggest. Here are a few sources that could be incorporated into the article:
  • George Shaffer. "Chicago radio actress wins film contract". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 March 1936. (about her first big break)
  • Antoinette Donnelly. "Shorter hair is definitely in, so get shears". Chicago Daily Tribune. 15 January 1939. (she gets about a paragraph describing her as one of the trendsetters)
  • "Film couple reweds". Chicago Daily Tribune. 11 February 1940. (mentions that she was Randall's "leading lady" in a recent movie)
  • "To seek divorce". Chicago Daily Tribune. 26 May 1940. ( Of note is the fact that only she gets a picture in the article)
  • "Beauty beaten". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 August 1944. (Describes how she was assaulted at a party; calls her one of the leading beauties of her day.)
And that's just from one paper. I'm sure there's lots more available elsewhere if more people are inclined to look. I'll add some stuff to the article sometime soon. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just hit the New York Times archives and found some more stuff:
  • "Louise Stanley Weds". New York Times. 28 August 1942. (about marriage to Charles A. Munn)
  • "Man held in beating of Mrs. Louise Munn". New York Times. 31 August 1944. (Existence of this story in NYT firmly establishes that she was not just notable in Illinois)
  • "Attack case continued". New York Times. 1 September 1944. (update on the above)
Stopped with these, but there's probably more. Zagalejo^^^ 07:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I was able to do some research. Louise Stanley actually starred in twenty four films, many with Tex Ritter, Bob Steele, and a few other actors of the day. I see no reason why she would be deleted. I have updated her page, and added the biography titled "B-Western Ladies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.74.97 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The nominator should have looked for references first, and improved the article--since she isnt the least obscure. . Of course, the real problem is the inexperience of the guy who wrote the article, who not only didnt look properly himself but was naive enough to write an article beginning "a little known actress", DGG (talk) 16:11, 11 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Where You Belong

Where You Belong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Delete due to notability issues. We should not have articles for any company slogan unless that slogan gave extreme social or moral effects. Even Nike, Inc. have no "Just do it" article. Lenticel (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, "Where You Belong" is already mentioned in the network's article where it belongs; no evidence given for independent notability outside its network. -- Mithent (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rami R (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic is not even significantly covered on the company's own corporate website. It does not appear to be notable. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also note, I just removed the lyrics included in the article due to
    WP:COPY. So now the article has even less notable content. -Verdatum (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Rescue/Weak Keep. Okay, for the non-Filipinos here, that may seem non-notable, but Where You Belong is pretty much the Filipino equivalent to

Still The One. We can expand on this one some more, then decide on what to do. So, for now, it's time to rescue. Also, I find it hard to believe we have no article on Just do it ViperSnake151 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. No further assertions of notability; lyrics and trivia. No social impact or economic impact either. --
talk•contribs) 03:59, 6 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Kowkabi

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

Unreferenced stub on a woman whose claim to notability appears to consist solely of being the mother of a politician. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Fighter (film)

Pit Fighter (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is unclear why this film passes the standards of

Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:26, 5 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 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link exchange

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

Unreferenced, non-notable, possibly non-neutral, and marked as such for 7 months TheBilly (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup - the term is definitely in use and not self-explaining. A good article about it would be worth keeping. And I personally prefer a marked article to an empty page. --Arcanios (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - speedy keep. Are you pulling my leg? 2.3 million google hits. Also the name of a notable company that popularized the practice. Next please. Wikidemo (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits don't establish notability. Please try again. TheBilly (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This text has appeared in sections in many other places, including [37], [38] and [39]. I don't know what the original source is; maybe it's Wikipedia and these are unattributed copies, or there's copyright violation, but the way that each varies significantly makes me wonder what's going on. -- Mithent (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheBilly has been working on this page for more than two years. Its been tagged for notability and sourcing for 7 months. It hasn't gotten any better. I agree that perhaps a proper article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. The burden of showing notability rests on those who wish to include the information, and this article doesn't do it. Xymmax (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no deadline, and the length of time someone has been working on the article has no relevance to whether or not it should be deleted. Tagging for notability, lack of references, and/or cleanup might be warranted, but the subject is notable enough for an article. Rray (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G has done a lot to cleanup and improve this article since the beginning of this Afd. I see no grounds to delete it, and it really just needed a cleanup anyway IMHO. -Verdatum (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable subject. Other problems require editing, not deletion. - Jehochman Talk 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this page has been cleaned up now and looks much better. My previous comment can now be disregarded. -- Mithent (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I hope more people will watchlist this -- it's been subject to
    WP:OWNership attempts by an anon spammer with a trademarked variation in mind. Keeping it a general article will require vigilance. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 6 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. -

Mailer Diablo 09:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Happy Hour (Uncle Kracker album)

Happy Hour (Uncle Kracker album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncertain future album,

WP:CRYSTAL. Dougie WII (talk) 09:58, 5 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card shark

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

Merged into

speedily deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) PS: Just to be complete, I note that the separation of these articles has one other proponent at Talk:Card sharp than the aggressive party already mentioned, but who also has not provided any sources backing this view, nor attempted to show the sources cited for the merge to be deficient. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Nominator concedes (but remains highly skeptical about, due to lack of sources) the possibility that the merge could go the other direction, from sharp to shark; nominator is concerned much more about the
PoV fork than about the specifics, despite having actually sourced the specifics in great detail. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Clarification: Just to be clear, I am proposing a deletion and then a replacement with a redirect, so that the deletion is on-record and grounds for speedy deletion of any re-creation of the PoV-fork, per
    Card shark was already redirecting (by me) to Card sharp; after un-reverting reversions of this redirect and trying to engage in discussion to resolve the editing dispute, I gave up and self-reverted it back to a stub instead of a redirect, so it could be easily examined here and an AfD template on it would make sense to anyone running across it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep If the dispute is a supposed equivalance of shark with sharp then you are mistaken - these are not the same thing. The term shark is commonly used in poker coverage to indicate someone who feeds upon the fish. See Sharkscope, for example. Deletion is not an appropriate way to resolve this editing dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thing is, reliable sources are overwhelming for equivalence, with zero reliable sources (actually, zero sources cited, period) indicating otherwise. I am well aware of the jargon usage you describe (the term "fish" for "easy mark" is originally from pool hustling and dates to the late 1800s), and when someone documents this shark/fish usage in the poker field, then this more specific usage can be added to the article, but the etymology is so well-sourced at this point it is unquestionable. Even the evolution of "shark" as a term for "skilled player" in addition to its negative meaning of "card cheat or swindler" is well-documented. All that's needed is a section at the article, not a separate article. And whether or not that section happens is a matter of whether reliable sources are provided, per
    WP:RS – not of any relevance to this AfD. Until such time as there is so much well-sourced material about "card shark" as a term distinct from "card sharp" that an article split is needed due to article length, there is no justification for the split. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment You are certainly obsessive - we are really straining at a gnat here. But I fear that I am being sucked into these deep waters. I've just spent some time in the OED and it appears that there are three root words in German:
  • schurke - a parasite or rogue. This then becomes shark as in loan-shark.
  • scharf - sharp or keen-edged. This figuratively then comes to mean quick-witted and the folk who live by their wits are called sharpers.
  • shirke - the sturgeon (fish) which then becomes the word shark, meaning the predatory fish.
The words have similar sounds and similar figurative usage and so here we are with much overlapping and interlocking usage. Anyway, I don't like the title Card shark, per se, as the term shark has a wider usage. For example, in the modern game HeroClix, the term shark is routinely used for a predatory tournament player - one who moves into a local backwater to snatch a big prize. I think there should be a page called Shark (gaming) which could cover such predatory play, including the modern poker usage, while Card sharp focusses upon cheating and sharp practise in card games. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is my bothering to actually do some research "obsessive", when yours is not? I agree that this is a molehill - it is a well-sourced and perfectly routine merge - but I'm not the one that made a mountain out of it, reverting without sources and pursuing repetitive personal attacks. <shrug> If it can't be resolved civilly between two editors, then it needs to be resolved by the community here.
Anyway, your "Shark (gaming)" idea would be problematic, because it does not have that positive connotation across the board. In
pool
, the connotation is quite negative (though among non-players, many believe that it is a compliment to call someone a "pool shark" to mean "skilled pool player"; actual players would never say that). The OED material is interesting; though it conflicts with some other sources, it could probably be worked in pretty easily.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would characterise my researches into this matter as obsessive too. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Colonel Warden and per Wikidemo. Rray (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Colonel Warden, also, while the dictionary.com definition does have cardsharp as a secondary definition[1], under it's definition of cardsharp [2] it suggests a connection with cheating which cardsharking doesn't have.Red Fiona (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: You're contradicting yourself. At the second URL it defines cardsharp as a cheater at cards, and the first one card shark it defines that term as both a skilled player or as equivalent to cardsharp, which automatically means that card shark and sharp both have the definition of cheater, even if this particular dictionary only gives the skilled player definition for one of them (other dictionaries disagree with this one, as already cited at Card sharp and in more depth at Talk:Card sharp). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, if they were truly synonymous then surely card sharp would have card shark as an alternative meaning too.Red Fiona (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: See more detailed sourcing at
    WP:IKNOWIT style reasoning, based on personal idiom, not on sources. Even the idea that this alleged distinction is an Americanism is directly contradicted by the American Heritage Dict., among others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Card sharp, or flip it around (obviously, that's a separate discussion). As mentioned, this appears to be a POV fork, and there is not sufficient content to warrant two separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are clearly two separate, if overlapping, meanings. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: On what basis would you separate these articles into a well-sourced one at
    Card shark, when a pile of cited sources say that both terms share both meanings? The issue is not whether there is both a positive and negative meaning; that's a given. The issue is whether there is any reliable evidence that the two terms (i.e. article topics) can be shown to have meanings different from each other. What evidence has been cited so far for this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We are discussing articles for an encyclopedia, not for a dictionary. Hot and cold are two very different things, but they are both treated under temperature.
    Cask ale, even though not quite the same thing. We try to usefully group words with related meanings together in one article to discuss the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No objection on my part to such further merges, but I have to note that "we can't merge these without merging every possible other mergeable article at the same time" is not sound XfD reasoning; things are very routinely merged in stages at XfD, be they articles, categories, WikiProjects, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is amply clear they are two distinct words, Word Reference, Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary. The encyclopedia blindly acting contrary to (at the very least SOME) dictionaries and common usage is a terrible practice. Both cardshark and cardsharp have in the past noted that some people do use the terms interchangeable, and that is all that is needed. Cardsharps are magicians or cheats. Cardsharks are skilled players that feed on "fish". On the other hand, the cardshark article could be redirected to Glossary of poker terms with the two sentences of: "A skilled player who feeds on fish. See also cardsharp." with appropriate wikilinks to both the fish entry and cardsharp. Also is could simply be transwikied to the Wikidictionary. At this point there is no Glossary of card game terms, which is where this obviously would be most appropriate, but the poker glossary would seem adequate until are card game glossary was populated. 2005 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction of citation falsification or misinterpretation: Your first reference (at the corrected URL of [42] gives "card shark" as a synonym of "card sharp", and at its [43] page, it gives the same defintion, and neither pages gives a positive one! Your second reference, when you dig deeper by also looking at its [44] page, first gives "card sharp" as a synonym of "card shark" and immediately below this gives the same definition, word for word for the shark version as it does for the sharp version, and without providing a positive meaning! Your third source gives "card shark" as nothing but a simple spelling variation of "card sharp" and provides both the positive and negative definitions for "card sharp"; further, at [45], it gives word-for-word precisely the same definitions and synonym relationship at the "card shark" entry as it does at the "card sharp" one you cited! Thanks for making my argument for me! Next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Your edit notes include phrases like "blatant falsification" and "desperation". You should be able to make your point without personal attacks. (And accusing someone of "blatant falsification" is a personal attack.) Rray (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're free to interpret it that way, but from my point of view I'm simply being accurate. The other party falsely claimed that three sources backed his/her position, and throughout the debate, beginning on the article's talk page, has used various fallacious argument techniques and become increasingly shrill, grasping at straws to prevent this merge without a shred of evidence in support of separate articles. What terms besides falsification and desperation would you rather that I applied to these behaviors? Criticizing another editor's behavior (actions) is not the same as calling the other party names or attacking their character, nor an assumption of bad faith (if the party in question were turning the article into a promotion piece for his/her website, then I might start assuming bad faith). Smart, and well-meaning, people can make bad arguments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stating that the references don't support the assertion would make the same point without being a personal attack. When you assume a motivation by calling edits falsifications and desperation, you're crossing a line. Calling someone shrill and saying that they're grasping at straws is just more inflammatory language that doesn't contribute to an environment of collaboration. I disagree with your viewpoint about the merge and the AfD, but I haven't made any judgments about your intentions. Do you see the difference now? Rray (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result of the
    WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. I may have been annoying as to my wording, but I'm not full of it on the matter actually before us at AfD. No reliably sourceable rationale has yet been given for the article bifurcation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 11 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 Nomination withdrawn --JForget 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Muslim rumor

Barack Obama Muslim rumor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Reasons: (1) Content

notability guideline. --HailFire (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination WITHDRAWN. --HailFire (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but there are oodles of sources on the page. How do you explain them? For that matter, how do you explain that I heard the rumor debunked on TV, if it is not notable?
    talk) 08:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Admins, having looked more closely at the sources (CNN, NY Post, NYT, etc), and the contribs of the nominator I suspect this is a bad faith nomination.
talk) 08:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I may not personally buy the whole "assuming good faith" deal, but last I checked it's
still a guideline here, Anteater. I don't see a drop in HellFire's contributions to warrant such prompt accusations of bad faith. Shem(talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I second that. HailFire is a thorough, talented and conscientious editor who has made an enormous contribution here, quite obviously in an abundance of good faith. This accusation is totally unfounded and offensive. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, his point 2 called CNN and the NYT "not reliable". I say he is trying to make some sort of point, and therefore made my conclusion.
talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Admins, and regular folks too: Take some time to read through the entries at
Talk:Insight (magazine) and you may see it differently than AnteaterZot. You may also solicit views from editors who have been active in the Barack Obama article where I have made over 1,000 edits since August 2006 and never once been charged with actions taken in bad faith. --HailFire (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
All sources about rumors, but not one source verifying the key messages contained in those rumors. Why bother, even labled as "false" the rumor accomplishes its mission just by getting its key messages broadcast on Fox News, CBS, and the Washington Post; mainstream sources who in the interest of journalistic neutrality completely dropped the ball in clearly specifying what is TRUE and what is fabrication. But Wikipedia can and must aim for a higher standard than this. --HailFire (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a dim view of the intelligence of the average Wikipedia reader, I suggest looking at
censorship is not the answer. hateless 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
No one's proposing censorship. The content can still exist without being placed on pedestal with its very own questionably-titled article page. As said before, you don't see the John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child rumor article anywhere. Shem(talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not necessary to verify the existance of
    Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comparing
verifiability than your own professional experts. Or is that what you use us for? Imagine that. The pot checking the kettle and both of us empty. --HailFire (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
"Take action to prevent Wikipedia from blindly following Fox News, CBS, and the Washington Post into this bad smelling mud." I think that's called multiple reliable sources, i.e.,
Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
All sources verifying the existence of rumors, and so doing further substantiating and inflating the existence of those rumors. Find any
WP:RS that verifies the content of the rumors. You certainly won't find them here, here, or here. The point, once again, is that Wikipedia doesn't need this article, and we can address all of its content in appropriate context through other articles where duplicate content already exists. --HailFire (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is about the existance of the rumors, a subject which you've just demonstrated is WP:N, refuting reason#3. You haven't pointed to any actual content of the article which isn't verified, so strike reason#2. So we're left with your assertion that the subject isn't encyclopedic. No matter how many times you point to the cartoon it won't substitute for showing us what in
Andyvphil (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I notice that I've refuted every element of this below. Assertion is not debate. Feel free to contribute to the latter.
Andyvphil (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You've done no such thing, save reasserting your belief that these three paragraphs deserve their own page. That aside, your veiled snideness and steadily escalating incivility is unbecoming someone who supposedly just wants debate, Andy. Shem(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about that, too. I'm perfectly happy to see the material placed in, say,
Andyvphil (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The comments are right, I should justify this better. I cannot find sufficient evidence to say that this is a term on it's own, as opposed to a description of an event. While it is worth mentioning, I fail to see how it is sufficiently notable as to justify it's own article, separate from
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. -Verdatum (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Right now it's not even mentioned there, except one line about Iowa emails. Be
Andyvphil (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Seems hailfire's original three arguments are pretty much shot down by the others preceeding me, with the possible exception of 'not suitable' -- but that's a notoriously subjective call. I find the article relevent, supported, and about as encyclopedic as anything in the realm of politics ever gets on Wikipedia. Mostly, what I question here is the motivation for deleting it. I still haven't heard a good argument for deleting it! It's factual, relevant and it's not hurting anyone. It appears to be helping lots of people get to the truth and dispell the rumor. Finally, I recall that on Wikipedia, Polling is NOT a substitute for debate. Hailfire, let's hear some justification in your debate (would be good for you to cite some Wikipedia precedent) and perhaps a little less lobbying for votes. riverguy42 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, then delete. Also, horribly phrased title.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for being the second one to admit that "merge" is just another way of saying "delete". If this material is placed whole in any other article the editors there will assert undue weight and subject it to severe entropy. If some of this material belongs in all the articles HailFire lists then put it in those articles. Then link to this article, where each element can be seen in the context of the others. There is no reasonable argument that content can appear in only one article. There is no other article on this subject, so it is not a content fork. This article does not avoid NPOV guidelines, so it is not a
Andyvphil (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess we need to add the "AfD is not a vote" template.
Andyvphil (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The subject is "covered/weighted/sourced" to exactly this degree:

One day after the video was posted, the Internet magazine

Andyvphil (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Andyvphil, are snide remarks really helpful to this discussion? Tvoz |talk 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This coming from someone who's just asserted that the article was written to perpetuate rumors that have been proven false while pretending ("guise"; syn. pretence) to be just reporting on the fact that the rumor exists. I'll be less contemptuous when your arguments get better, and you start trying to refute mine.
Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Already asserted, no need for me to respond any further (whether baited or not). R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if the above text added that the Clinton campaign denied the Insight report. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a useful addition. . . R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, not so adequate after all. It's already in this article. Be bold. Make it fully adequate.
Andyvphil (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If it isn't notable, then why does Google news have 77 hits in the past month for "obama muslim rumor"? Our threshold of notability for the creation of new articles is not relative to other political stories- it's relative to the degree of coverage from reliable sources, of which there is plenty for this subject. johnpseudo 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reread what I wrote and then reassess your statement. Wikipedia should be better organized to have better articles.--
TX 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
My, what a bright
Andyvphil (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I added the material to the
TX 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks reasonable to me. There are some problems, but I bet those are ones that have snuck back into the "Rumor" article's text rather than being due to you. Next, we can expect the attack of the "merge and delete" crowd. Success in this experiment requires that they be subdued. Put it on your watchlist, and we'll see.
Andyvphil (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well,
Andyvphil (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, johnpseudo (a "keep", see above) just killed it there. I've reverted, once, but then it's up to you "merge" guys to put your reverts where your mouths are. ("Merge-and-kill" POV warriors are excused.)
Andyvphil (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment by starter of article I see that it has been pasted there. I would be happy with this if this article ends up being deleted. Just as long as the information is there and people can find it. That way people can check out rumors they have heard. Redddogg (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In general there should not be articles on rumors. How do we know that every instance of a person saying something is a part of the same rumor? As others have said, the information can be included in other articles if it is not already. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that the Martin allegations are connected to the Clinton/Insight ones, but we can verify that the connection has been made in a RS. Yes, "rumors" would be better in the title, but that's an argument for renaming, not deletion.
Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That's an argument for a redirect.
Andyvphil (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I wish there was a policy that said that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting what policy? WP:N disagrees with you.
Andyvphil (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Try
WP:NOT. We're not here to report every news article. This "rumor" has been given undue weight. Delete the article, give a brief mention on the main Obama page and move on. Not every internet hoax and mistaken news report should be given a full article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I already tried
Andyvphil (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not indiscriminate, not news, not... encyclopedic. We're giving a internet hoax way too much weight. You do remember undue right? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "quote from policy" don't you understand? Since
Andyvphil (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep A lizard part of my mind says to delete this, but the simple aspects of notability here are beating the lizard back. I can't see how this fails our notability standards right now.Keep. Lawrence Cohen 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article details a pretty well known and ongoing misinformation campaign that has been covered in most mainstream media. It could use a nice cleanup and have some work on the sourcing, but there is no reason to delete it. Avador (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe mention of it could be merged, but it should not be given any serious weight. Even if reported as "a false rumor" we don't need to create articles to highlight every piece slander or urban legend about every public figure. What next, a "Richard Gere Gerbil Rumor" article? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip blog. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability alone isn't an argument for giving its brief content its own separate article. Shem(talk) 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see much of a case for merging. This article isn't particularly short, and could probably be expanded further. Is there an appropriate Obama article that isn't already packed to the brim where this could be merged? Everyking (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Loonymonkey. AniMate 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty notable and can be expanded considerably. Probably much better to rename Barack Obama Muslim heritage and make a more balanced article by including facts of family history, Muslim parentage background, his experiences in mosque as a child, views of the Muslim world on his heritage (Muslims hold that a child is Muslim if his father is). Decoratrix (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the problem with renaming this article with that title is that this article is not about that. Thanks for your suggestion, however. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed article to Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns.

Four things I'm

WP:BOLD
LY attempting to do with this move:

  1. Shift the article focus to media coverage of the whisper campaigns (the reason for their notability), not the whisper campaigns themselves, hopefully addressing
    WP:N
    concerns;
  2. steer the article decisively away from becoming a
    WP:POVFORK of Barack Obama#Early life and career
    ;
  3. remove the word "rumor" from the article title, thereby solving perhaps to some subtle, but nonetheless serious
    WP:NPOV
    problems; and
  4. (with some trepidation, but an abundance of good faith) retain a separate article space for the current stream of
    WP:RS
    reports about anti-Obama innuendo and gossip, including childhood years in Indonesia and non displays of (symbolic) patriotism, or any similar unsourced and unverified claims that may float to the top of the mainstream media establishment in the weeks and months to come.

I hope this change satisfies most of the editors who have contributed to this discussion. If so, I would support closing this

WP:AFD once work is completed to make all necessary adjustments. --HailFire (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't understand why you prefer "whisper" to "rumor". I do agree with you that the media coverage is more notable than the rumors or whispers themselves. Redddogg (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "whisper" thing either. The messages, etc. seem to be literally rumors; and only figuratively whispers. I don't know how a person can literally whisper over e-mail. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...or in press conferences, on websites and in broadcasts. Never mind literally, the subject isn't even figuratively whisper campaigns. There's bold, and then there's cavalier. Don't you think you could have at least mentioned your brainstorm before acting on it?
Andyvphil (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Whisper has the connotation of planning. For example, Karl Rove initiated a whisper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. We don't know if anyone planted these rumors, so I think rumor is better.
talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge salvageable content to
    Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. As mentioned below, this isn't a commonly used term, and the argument that the whole article is original research seems convincing. I looked for it on Google and did find it, but in reference to a couple of political agreements between the UK and Spain, not ethnicity, so redirect to Spanish Briton doesn't seem appropriate, it seems likely people using the term would want a political agreement. There isn't really any sourced content to merge; there is a beautiful table with pretty pictures, but no sources for the numbers, without which I don't feel comfortable adding them to another article. If someone wants to see the table to help them look for sources, drop me a note, and I'll userfy the article for you. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Britons

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

1) Neologism (see

WP:NOT#OR) as an article has been spun-out of a non-topic 3) Article is unsourced and consists of a few platitudinous statements, plus links to a number of lists and categories. If there is a topic here at all, it is covered in those lists and categories. Therefore, Delete. Smerus (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Smerus (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. I encourage talk page discussion on the renaming of this article as suggested below. — Scientizzle 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Briton

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

1) Neologism (see

WP:NOT#OR) as an article has been spun-out of a non-topic 3) Article consists of a number of unrelated and usubstantiated statements; the only references relate to Catherine of Aragon and her family and some recent census figures. If there is a topic here at all, it is covered in Category:Spanish Britons. Therefore, Delete. Smerus (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sorry, mere assertion won't do. What is a 'Spanish Briton'? It may not be 'meant to be a neologism', but it is one all the same. The term does not exist outside of this article. The 'references' in the article are trivial and not about the topic of 'Spanish Britons'.--Smerus (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to this legit ref, "Spanish London" exists. If there can be "Spanish London" , a fortiori, there can be "Spanish Briton." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know that's not the case. 'Spanish London' might relate to Spaniards in London who are not Britons in any way - maybe Spanish restaurants or Spanish flamenco troupes - or, as in the case of the present reference, Catherine of Aragon (who might possibly have been categorisable as English, but certainly not British). So I'd have no problem if you or anyone else started an article on 'Spanish London'. But London is a place, and Britons are people. Show me any Wikipedia article under a title which can't be found in any independent reference (except where the title is extended for disambiguation purposes), and I'll show you an article which should be renamed or deleted, depending on whether or no it had any genuine content. this one has no such content. It's simply a fake article on a fake topic.Smerus (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, to something like Spanish ancestry in Britain. I think the topic is a reasonable one, but I don't like the apparent invention of the term Spanish Briton. --
    talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

^Keep: Arguments over accepted english words in a title are reason for edits, not deletion.--12.72.149.3 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument over 'accepted English words in a title'. It is about an article on an invented topic, not recognised anywhere except in the article itself, and hence contravening WP's policies on neologism/original research.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of a group of articles looking at immigrant communities from various parts of the world in the UK. By this logice, you would have to delet ALL of them. Indisciplined (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logically all those articles on topics not recognised elsewhere should certainly be deleted, I agree.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think it is universal that this issue should have never come up, some person should have looked further into the other articles aswell as they are all the same...not an issue.. i think its unanimus..think we should take away the delete panel at the beginning now!.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.63.106 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename along with all of the other pages like this There are lots of these pages. (I've made a combined table to aid seeing them all, see the "Spanish Briton" article for it.) These are almost all made-up terms, and on occasion are completely inaccurate - Karl Marx would never have called himself "British", yet this is what is implied by the term
    Irish community in Britain (the normal phrase) was moved to "Irish Briton", which the article itself acknowledges is made up. These are in the main made up terms, and often inaccurate or downright wrong. --sony-youthpléigh 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree with this analysis; but there is no suggestion as to what the renaming procedure could be. As pointed out the various articles are full of inaccuracies and misleading insinuations. They are not encyclopaedic, and remain serious candidates for deletion. If I knew how to bundle them all together, I would list them all for deletion - I am not picking on Spaniards (or Britons for that matter).--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also find myself leaning towards delete on the notability issue. The Irish community in Britain is quite a notable topic and makes a decent article - as would be the Caribbean community in Britain, if that article were developed - but at present there are 50 counties listed in the XXX-Britons-type articles ... that's over a quarter of the countries in the entire world!! What kind of notability standard is being adhered to here? The UK is not like the US where the whole population are descendants of emigrants, and where a whole raft of XXX-American are perfectly valid and notable terms. Most of these would be better dealt with as the "Asian community in Britain", "Black community in Britain" and so forth, saving really specific articles for genuinely notable ethnic communities.
I suspect the best place to sort this out would be the UK Wikipedians' notice board. --sony-youthpléigh 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This isn't a deletion issue, but since no-one except Wikipedia uses this term, renaming these articles to 'Spanish community in Britain' is much better. Cop 663 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per all the other articles with similar nomenclature. The Ogre (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. One section needs work, but the rest of the article is
    is the sort of article that should be in English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Keep All. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boondocks
episode articles

The Garden Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Trial of R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Guess Hoe's Coming to Dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Granddad's Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
A Date With The Health Inspector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Story of Gangstalicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
A Huey Freeman Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Real (The Boondocks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Return of the King (The Boondocks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Itis (The Boondocks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Let's Nab Oprah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Riley Wuz Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Wingmen (The Boondocks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Block Is Hot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Passion of Ruckus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
...Or Die Trying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Tom, Sarah and Usher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Thank You for Not Snitching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Stinkmeaner Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Story of Thugnificent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Attack of the Killer Kung-Fu Wolf Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Shinin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Ballin' (The Boondocks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

I like The Boondocks, but the articles are all unsourced, failing to meet

WP:EPISODE and appear to be non notable. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Question is, do substantial
indepedendent sources about individual episodes exist at all? So far no one has come up with any. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:12, 12 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious stratification

View AfD
)

This is not an encyclopedic article, it's an essay. Circeus (talk) 05:35, 5 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JS Moore

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

Unreferenced since creation; looks to be a case of self-promotion by the subject, who is apparently the editor who has removed the "unreferenced" tag several times, as well as the "prod" tag. Violates

Myers 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I am disagreeing with the deletion. It looks like the author information has been compiled by several websites, including the publisher's as well as the author information on the book itself. —Preceding
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Anti-Americanism --JForget 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism in the United States

Anti-Americanism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This is a partisan rant posing as an article. Nothing is said here that is not, or cannot be, said better in the

The'FortyFive' 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

It's possible that very few people will use it, but that doen't negate the point I was making. Jeodesic (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, doing a redirect (because "redirects are cheap") isn't much different than a reward. Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly biased.Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom., and others.--JayJasper (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, G11 - Blatant advertisement. James086Talk | Email 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinTEC

Notability, we're not a webhost.

Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I thought about that, but figured the article had been there long enough it'd probably be declined for that reason.--
    Crossmr (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Llama (computer culture)

Crossmr (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Either way, the reason its being put up for deletion is idea that it reads like a personal essay and seems to be based wholly on original research. Tagging it doesn't address that concern. The article wasn't created yesterday.--
    Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Provide evidence of notability. e.g. reliable sources that cover llamas in games. Fansites, forums, blogs, etc. Don't do anything to establish that kind of notability.--
    Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Since none of it is referenced, that would make none of it currently legit? You assume references are out there, but its being put up for deletion because its been article this long and none have been provided. Claiming there might be references without actually providing them doesn't exactly make a compelling argument to keep it.--
    Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The article is currently up for deletion. If nothing can be sourced appropriately right now simply reducing it to an unsourced stub doesn't exactly address the concerns here. You say the term is well known. But is it only well known to a certain sub-set of the population? e.g. those who grew up playing Maxis games for example. That doesn't mean its well known to the greater population and sources need to be provided to demonstrate that in fact llama's in computer games are a notable topic that's received attention for the general public and the article needs to be rewritten to match what is available in those sources.--
    Crossmr (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Lets not underestimate the population of those who played maxis games (
    best-selling pc game of all time with 16 million units sold). Also its not just maxis games (I, for instance, learned of the term from an Unreal Tournament 2004 mod). I admit my suggestion of trimming and stubing does not really address the articles problems, but it does make them more "forgivable". Rami R 15:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks to the efforts of User:Billgordon1099, the article is now well sourced, and addresses all the concerns raised on this AFD. Rami R 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it really hasn't. I've tagged over half a dozen statements which constitute original research or are otherwise unverified. At best the sources provided support a List as I mentioned already. They don't support any kind of prose on the subject.--
Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 13 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. -

Mailer Diablo 08:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Bryan Jepson

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

Orphaned article about non-notable individual, per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first link indicates that he spoke at a conference. The second link indicates that he wrote a book. Neither of these makes him
notable
.
I could only find one peer-reviewed paper by Jepson [49] and it's not about autism. Four results on Google scholar is, frankly, pathetic. (I return way more hits than that and I'm certainly not notable.)
If he's an "authority", where's the recognition from his peers? If he's "definitely notable", how come he's been so thoroughly ignored by the national media? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This person is of no stature, but has simply been inserted in a bid to mislead parents into thinking there is credible opinion to attack vaccines and make money for autism quacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.124.221 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is weird. This is my search, as far as I can see it is unfiltered. The results page says there are 1090 results, which condense to 271 (with the usual disclaimer of "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 271 already displayed"). I get exactly the same result using your search above. No clue what is going on here.... --Crusio (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, very strange. Are you searching from a worksite or anywhere that might filter any internet content without your knowledge?
    Snocrates 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete; no notability, as shown above. The Google Scholar information is rather pathetic for a modern scholar writing in the Western world--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't looked at this particular article yet, but the autism and anti-vaccine activists have colonized Wikipedia to a significant extent, meaning that there is a lot of coverage in Wikipedia on these topics. It's my sense that some of the article contributors may be a bit over-broad in their sense of what is notable on this issue. --Lquilter (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Highly notable nutritional doctor. john (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete An emergency medicine MD, whose contributions WRT to WP:PROF basically amount to one book (per Crusio, above). The book's grounds for notability are dubious, authorship of a single book doesn't imho confer notability. The theories he's supporting (rather than originating, as I understand it) seem to pass WP:FRINGE by a wide margin, but I don't see him inheriting encyclopedic notability from writing this book. Since the book is largely a synopsis of work out of the Autism Research Institute (as I understand it) a merge to that page may be more appropriate than a keep. He's no Simon Baron-Cohen, nor is he an Andrew Wakefield for that matter. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable scientific work on autism or anything else. one popular oriented book, with uncritical stories in two local news sources. DGG (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable per google scholar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 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 to

Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Budderball

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

Unless something amazing happened to the animal during filming, or perhaps gained media attention afterwards, I don't see how this requires its own article. The dog may be notable for its role in the movie,

original research. ARendedWinter 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Alrighty, merge is fine. I'm unfamiliar with the movie, so anyone want to merge the relevant info? ARendedWinter 00:47, 6 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. Nothing worth merging.

☎ 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

SysProtect

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

Basic recreation of the

edil 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I would have done that, but it looks to me like there isn't any relevant/useful information that can be salvaged. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, please do. ♥
edil 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Eliz81(C) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is anythng to salvage then merge it but if there's nothing, there's nothing. Hammer1980·talk 23:53, 26 November 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) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Vundo. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge if anything useful, else leave redirect to vundo--CastAStone|(talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge relevant information into parent article. 67.168.65.207 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no sources and hardly any content and this amounts actually to spam for a non notable remedy (which seems to have side effects) against a maybe also not notable virus. --
    Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VPWW Weather Forecast Office

VPWW Weather Forecast Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has carried little more than three sentences about this entity since its creation in January 2007. The creator of this article has only

WP:SOAP.— Twigboy (talk) 02:52, 5 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 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Ridge Middle School

Canyon Ridge Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

It seems that this article is going to stay a single sentence. No effort is being taken to expand it or edit it at all. RandehMann (talk) 02:23, 5 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 (Besides, an article about arm cannons that mentions various Transformers, but neglects Megatron, is missing the friggin' point.) — Caknuck (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arm cannon

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

Contested prod. An article on a non-notable

Miremare 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

If you're gonna cite wikipedia policies at me, then might I remind you of the 1st policy on the policy
list, WP:Ignore all rules
, which says "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia."
Yes I know I said the golden words "not doing any harm", which gave you the opportunity to show off citing a policy. But that alone should not detract from all the other stuff I said, so for anyone else reading this I implore you not to listen to these catchy policy titles and instead consider letting this article be improved. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's ignore all rules. While we're at it, let's let vandals that say they do it to improve Wikipedia run amuck. Because after all, they really believe they're helping! And we should let them because of
WP:IAR. Don't be ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Typical, you're still fixated on the catchy titles of policies instead of what they consist of; it says "may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". Why are you bringing up hypothetical arguments about vandalism, this is about an article being deleted? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typical, you believe that because you like an article, it's good. (Note that I'm not wikilinking to anything now). Why are you bringing up policymongering when it has nothing to do with the growing consensus that this article is gonna go? I'm not responding to you anymore, as you evidently resort to childish ad hominems when you don't have a real argument. JuJube (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I liked this article, in fact I said; "but it could turn into something good", implying that it is bad. However I just want it improved instead of deleted. And as for your "growing consensus" the vote currently stands at 4-2, I'm hardly desperate. I will say though that it's rather childish for you to use a made-up word like "policymongering" (what is this? Google only gives 3 hits and mongering means promoting a negative thing, are u saying policies are bad?), try to start a grandiose hypothetical debate about wikipedia being overrun by vandals or something and then resorting to name-calling and running away instead of just giving sensible rebuttals. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan4314, this is a discussion, not a vote; it's arguments that count. I think it is very unlikely this can be improved, or expanded without further OR. Firstly, why is the term "arm cannon" being used? It's a non-proprietary term that has no notability or widespread use in itself, and has been chosen apparently at whim. Even the first source cited doesn't call the character's weapon an "arm cannon". We're getting a neologism that has apparently come from
Miremare 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Excellent, I'm glad about it not being a vote. I must admit that the title does seem to come straight from Metroid, also I had been thinking if this article survives this, that that name has gotta go. I understand what you mean about the notability of the term "Arm-Cannon", although I'm sure I have heard people use the term "Gun-Arm" before. I googled it and got 303,000 hits, as well as this webpage by one of the prop designers on Robocop3, they actually built a real working gun arm, with rockets n shit! As for etymology I can't find any examples earlier than "
Transformer
) in 1984, but like u said unless I can find a source saying this was the 1st ever appearence of a Gun-Arm it's classed as OR right?
Also, not that I'm trying to be inflammatory so please please don't take offense, but if this is a discussion then I'd like to add something else in regards to the "sources are no good" and "Mega Buster this junk" comments above.
WP:PROBLEM
says comments like these, specifically "The article is rubbish" and "It's not referenced properly" should be avoided. It then goes on to say "even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it. That an article is poorly formatted, contains bad grammar, is lacking in certain areas, and so on are relatively minor problems and such articles can be of benefit even in the current state. Try to consider the article's potential for improvement. In the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws".
"With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrassment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article".
We're all familiar with why the "
it's not harming anyone" comments should be avoided but the above policy says that "harmful" is stuff like being shamefully biased or a hoax, which this article is obviously neither. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
While that's true, original research is by it's very nature unverifiable, and therefore in breach of a core tenet of Wikipedia - to write only on what has already been covered by reliable secondary sources. I don't see that WP:PROBLEM applies here, as there doesn't seem to me to be any way in which these problems can be addressed... Really, once the OR and unreliable sources are stripped away there's nothing left other than "an arm cannon (or whatever it should be called) is a firearm attached to the arm", which is self-evident, but things like the functionality, or composition, or other properties of what is essentially a wildly differing fictional weapon absolutely needs a proper source to be included (what we currently have for that is a Word document containing a Metroid fan's essay on "arm cannon mechanics"), and even then cannot be said to be true of all the examples listed. The fact that a character has an gun attached to their arm is of course worthy of mention in the article on the character in question, but without someone reliable actually having written on this subject, we don't have the basis for an article.
Miremare 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I see your point and a agree. However did you see the source I found about the real gun-arm they made? Could this in anyway be used to give this article (or a differently named version of it) a shred of hope (with some edits obviously)? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a useful source for the
Miremare 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well it has been nice to hash out the details of this (and I do mean that earnestly). So I guess it just boils down to whether people believe this article can physically be improved within the rules Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:10, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Kowal

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

Article was previously Speedy Deleted for not asserting notability. Tagged again for Speedy Deletion following recreation, but it has now been expanded to at least assert notability for the subject's incidental involvement in the Space Shuttle Columbia incident. None of the sources provided do anything other than mention the person's name. Fails

WP:BIO. DAJF (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMUnion

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

Article asserts no notability whatsoever, though external links to independant sources. What makes this SU different from any other? Nothing, as far as I can see, thus it fails

WP:N. Also reads like an advertisement. TheIslander 02:02, 5 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. Speedy per no assertion of notability. the_undertow talk 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bos-Brook

Bos-Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure whether it's a hoax (I can't find any references) or merely something completely non-notable, but it should go either way. Created by an SPA about a year ago. Also remove BO-BR. - Richfife (talk) 01:47, 5 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diditleak.com

Diditleak.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable site (or blog), the references in the article do not mention the site at all. --

Snigbrook (talk) 01:28, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

AfDs for this article:
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply put, this person has no historical importance and its not encyclopedic.

Virginia Tech Massacre and not because of her own merits... that's a crucial distinction, because otherwise every story-of-the-day (and a lot of stories get a lot of coverage everyday) would get an article... we have to decide whether this info deserves to be in an encyclopedia, and I suggest the answer's no. Brokethebank (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comment BTW I know that it's been up for nom before, but there's no rule against bringing it again if there was no consensus last time -- there's never been a keep decision I think -- just no consensus over and over again... maybe this time we can get some consensus? Brokethebank (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment One other thing (sorry I don't do this often): but I am advocating either Delete or Redirect to

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Brokethebank (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • It's a valid opinion when referring to a well-formulated extensive argument. Perhaps you're thinking of
    WP:PERNOM (There is no WP:PER Xxxx) which actually states the same reason for validity of such an opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:PERNOM refers to support/opposition for the nominator's rationale, not individuals weighing in on the matter. And truthfully, I don't think either your or my positions are so extensively laid out that a simple "per Xxxxx" can do the job. Just a suggestion.....Brokethebank (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Some of the 9/11 victims are notable. Edward Felt , Todd Beamer and Tom Burnett for examples, who likely would not have been considered "notable" if they weren't involved in the attacks. WP:BIO1E applies to "essentially low profile" and living persons; this person is neither. Arbcom ruled to apply it in one case to a "recently deceased" person, but that did not change WP:BLP to apply to deceased people despite numerous attempts. We're beyond "recent" at this point anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But notice that those people are notable for what they did. Two of them posthumously won awards. Couture-Nowak is notable only because she died during a notable event. The NY Times ran biographical articles on many of the 9/11 victims and I assume many of the out-of-towners had articles in their local papers, too. That's coverage in multiple sources, but not notability. eaolson (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the subject of multiple independent, nontrivial articles in national newspapers of at least two countries, Couture-Nowak clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. NOT#NEWS is not relevant because the events that brought her notability (establishing a school, role in Virginia Tech massacre) are of enduring importance. BRMo (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have had enough coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I agree with the arguments above that this person is only notable as a victim. However, at this point there seems to be a lot of interest (although again I agree that most sources are little else than "fancied up obituaries". Come back with this AfD in a year when things have calmed down and people feel less emotional about it. If there would then still be many argueing for notability, then this person probably is notable after all. If not, this could become a simple redirect to the main article on the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crusio (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the Canadian angle. Yes, she was one of many victims, but her death had special significance in the Canadian zeitgeist -- go read our article to see what I mean. Even the Prime Minister got involved. For a hypothetical analogy, think of the kidnapping of an American journalist in Iraq -- (I'm guessing) they'll likely get a lot of press coverage in the U.S. Wikipedia and even an article on the English Wikipedia, whereas the kidnapping of an Iraqi journalist won't. Reason: it's a big deal in the home country. The same is true of Ms. Couture-Nowak in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; enough reliable sources. Continuing to bring up an article for AfD because there's no consensus is disruptive and pointless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada, and her notability was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And I adopt the reasoning in the last nom as to why
    assume good faith at this point. Simply because "there's no rule against bringing it again if there was no consensus last time" does not mean that doing so again is appropriate or warranted. I really wish that the nominator had heeded the advice of the admin that closed the last nomination, namely:"Since both camps are of roughly equal size and employ defensible policy arguments, this is essentially an editorial decision, on which we have no consensus. May I suggest that AfD no. 5 be deferred until something happens that is very likely to change that outcome?". Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. She's really not notable. GJ (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As she's the primary subject of numerous secondary independent sources (which have continued many months after her death) and even the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper paid tribute to her in Parliament [52], "really not notable" doesn't seem like an appropriate description of this person --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the same arguments I (and others) made in AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, and AfD 4. Simply put, there isn't a special class of notability that says that it has to be determined before death and not because of cause of death. Her life has been covered by multiple major independent sources, and that's what the guidelines specify. It's possible to write a verifiable article on her; that's what policy requires. Agreeing with Skeezix that it's hard to AGF on a fifth nomination, especially when the closing of the last AfD and the endorsing of DRV specifically asked there not to be further nominations without new evidence, none of which appears in Brokethebank's nom. It seems to be a case of "repeat until desired outcome is achieved." See also, precedent moving toward Keeping the articles for instructors (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Bishop closed with Keep), even for instructors with *far* less coverage than Ms. Couture-Nowak. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, consensus is in fact changing, even more strongly to Keep. I think this time there is finally clear consensus, clear enough to be decisive. We follow the sources. WP NEWS means only that if there were two or three stories the first few days, she wouldn't be notable. Any broader extension is unwarranted by policy or by common sense. DGG (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre can go into detail in much the same way as this, and this and this, etc, do. Incidentally, the references in the article need tidying, some are dead links and some are links to commercial sites where you have to pay to read the article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Language issues impart extra notability to the school statement. Nova Scotia is not a predominantly French-speaking province, so establishing the first French language school in a large geographic subdivision of Nova Scotia inherently constitutes a more notable accomplishment than most schools would. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't focus on if someone was not notable in the past, but if that they're notable now, regardless of how they became notable. Even many months after her death, reliable sources are still writing about her. This woman is now sadly part of Canadian history and we can't change that. --Oakshade (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge -- Sure, she deserves recording in history -- just not in her own article. I think many people are wowed at the "extensiveness" of the article when in reality the first lines say it best: she "...was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia and was the only Canadian victim of the Virginia Tech massacre." That's it. That's all there is, folks. Listen, everyone in that shooting was the "only" something. But more to the point, I don't think she has any historic notability beyond her name and a few facts.
    Just because she had coverage in a bunch of reliable sources doesn't mean she's encyclopedic.Pablosecca (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- and to say that her founding the École acadienne de Truro establishes her notability seems to be ludicrously low for a historical standard. To wit, the article on the École acadienne de Truro was itself deleted in a successful AfD. We must stirve to protect Wikipedia from tribalism and recentism.Pablosecca (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French language education in Canada hors Québec is not a low historical standard — it's part and parcel of one of the central defining issues of Canadian political life. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Oakshade. WillSWC (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are no new reasons provided for deletion than what's in the four previous attempts, nor does it seem likely that any new reasons for deletion will emerge. As for reasons to keep on the other hand, Oakshade among others here have indicated new supporting material since the last AfD. The most appropriate way to break the gridlock is a full keep decision, rather than another no consensus, to discourage further unproductive trips to the deletion dentist. Dl2000 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment. The previous AfDs ended in "No Consensus" not "Keep", so the fact that no new arguments for delete have been provided is irrelevant. The "Keep" arguers have provided more examples of the same thing, but their underlying case remains the same. We can't just mark this as keep instead of no consensus in order to discourage further AfDs. We must properly evaluate consensus, and it is clear here that once again there is no consensus. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It is clear here that consensus here is overwhelmingly "keep" this time as opposed to any of the previous AfDs. As correctly pointed out, there has been no new arguments to delete, however there is new supporting arguments to keep; besides the change in consensus, there has been at least two new (and very recent) secondary sources have been written primarily about this person demonstrating lasting historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I was trying to make is that the deletionists feel that "fancied up obituaries" will never trump
    BIO1E, so the fact that more "fancied up obituaries" now exist is not a new argument. You are right though, that consensus seems to be swinging to "Keep" this time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • All Most of the "delete/merge/redirect" votes here are by those who voted "delete" in previous AfDs, but a majority of the "Keep" votes are by editors participating in an AfD of this topic for the first time. There's indication that all most the users concerned with deleting this article elected to "Watch This Page." --Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking only for myself, I didn't participate in any of the previous discussions and "voted" redirect. (Though I'm changing to keep in just a second.)eaolson (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake Eaolson (regarding your pre-keep stance). I see that SilkTork hadn't participated in previous AfDs on this topic. But the remaining "delete" voters, all have voted in previous AfDs on this topic, while a majority of the "keep" voters haven't. --Oakshade (talk) 01:04, 13 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 as below, and Redirect to Free Speech Radio News. It seems the merge to NiON has been done already, but the history will stick around if someone thinks they can improve on it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aura Bogado

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

This is an

WP:BLP1E are clear on this - the biographical article about this individual should be deleted and the core events described in the article belong in an article about the controversy itself. However, I do not think that this event is notable enough to have its own article, but it does belong as a section in the larger article about the group Not in Our Name. To that end, I propose copying the section "Hustling the Left controversy" to Not in Our Name (I've already taken the liberty of doing this here) along with relevant external links (also done already), then deleting this article, perhaps leaving a redirect link to Not in Our Name. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:16, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korphai

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

Non-notable music ensemble. Unsourced for over a year, no reliable sources on Google (though admittedly searching for a Thai music group is problematic), nothing at artistdirect.com or allmusic.com. If somebody can provide reliable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nom. Corvus cornixtalk 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep You cannot say "non-notable". You can only say "notability not evident" And there are reliable sources in google. I added one, but I admit you have to sift thru much. There also several CDs released, in addition to listed in the article. Mukadderat 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone describing you as lazy - I think that refers to the fact that nobody sourced the article until recently. I can't remember where I saw it or the exact quote, but I think that, somewhere on WP, it says something like we are aiming to encompass all of human knowledge so it seems a retrograde step to delete an article which could usefully be expanded. It does no harm to leave it alone until then - there is no suggestion that it is either biased or wrong I note.— Preceding
talk • contribs
)
Changed from "Delete" to "Weak delete" now that editors are working to document how it meets WP:MUSIC. The new discussion on notability has brought up some good points. Because some of the criteria require music expertise to evaluate, I'm holding off responding in the hope that others will do so shortly. --
talk) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed from "Weak delete" to "Weak keep" per my comment above. Some of the references are a bit questionable, but I don't think a deletion is required at this point. --
talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for identifying criteria. Could you please, on the article talk page, join the discussion by identifying how #10 is being met? --
talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
We also need help identifying how criterion #1 is being met. Thanks! --
talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Original Motion Picture Soundtrack: The Overture qualifies them under #10 and the article boasts a reasonable number of sources, which qualifies them under #1 presuming one is satisfied by the nature of those citations. (Discussion here seems more important than on the Talk page, n'est-ce pas?) Bondegezou (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep typical form of Western bias. Since it isn't to be found on google (or difficult to find) it doesn't exist. The whole notability system you mention works for western countries and then not even for all of them. Also the internet is not a criteria for notability. There are comedygroups in existence in Thailand where you can probably not find anything about on the net. But still they exist and are very popular among the population. I know this as I AM a comedian here in Thailand who performs daily. In countries like Thailand many performances will never be recorded in English on the net. But that doesn't mean that most people in that country do not know about it. This group and professor I have met personally and I have seen them perform personally at a major concert (where my group also performed). Just as an example try googling my boss: Doo Dokraedone. You will probably not find him, but virtually every Thai I have ever met knows him from his tv performances and acting in movies. /end of rant Waerth (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Carcer City

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

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from the Grand Theft Auto game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even having previously edited this article, I agree with new understanding on from
    WP:FICT that this article isn't needed. --MASEM 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much just a plot summary and trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has nothing to do with anything. It's a fake city in a video game universe that just gets passing mentions in the games. I typically hate the cruft argument, but man, this is pushing the boundaries. --CastAStone|(talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I hate see this article that has some effort put into it be deleted. But there are no references, and it isn't very important to the series. If there is a locations of GTA page, it should be merged, otherwise maybe a redirect to
    Grand Theft Auto (series).TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmont

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

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from the Need for Speed game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gameguide.
    talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep--216.221.83.54 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though there are 69,000 hits on Google, most of them are blogs or game guides. There are a lack if references, and unless there is another article that could possibly be merge, it should be deleted. PrestonH 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable game setting, with no reliable sources to establish notability outside of just being a game location in Need for speed Carbon. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 10 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. Mr.Z-man 06:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Green Isles

Land of the Green Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Kings Quest game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 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 01:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Middle School

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

Non-notable elementary school, prod tag removed. It's in Bath, ME. AnteaterZot 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:08, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 08:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Tamir (King's Quest)

AfDs for this article:
Tamir (King's Quest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Kings Quest game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --D-Day 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:09, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 08:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Merchant cash advance

Merchant cash advance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be spam but since no company is mentioned I did not use CSD. Four pages were made with the same info and just a slightly different name. They were edited to be redirects to this page. Gtstricky 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The "sale" of future sales is probably an encyclopedic topic, though I'm not sure under what name it's best known. It's somewhere between a derivative investment and a loan, probably the business equivalent of a title loan, so legitimate banks don't touch it. This is written as a sales piece but could be salvaged with sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:09, 5 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. -

Mailer Diablo 08:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Vents (musician)

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

Non-notable Australian rapper; fails

WP:SPA; no content has been added since its creation. Precious Roy 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:09, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Limitless Potential

The Limitless Potential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wholly inaccurate (Nine Inch Nails had nothing to do with it) and misleading (the "Press" link citations provided are actually Blogs, not

notable enough. I don't believe anything can be done to improve the article beyond removing the inaccuracies, which would leave it without a leg to stand on, notability-wise. As cool as the project is on its own merits, Wikipedia simply isn't the place for this article; the NIN wiki would be more appropriate. BotleySmith 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The 'blogs' are not just random personal blogs, so they could be considered as reliable sources, but they are no indication of notability. For something like this to be notable I would expect at least some coverage from more traditional sources - as it is this fails the
    Snigbrook (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
They very well may have been looking at this page to source that information. BotleySmith (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve this page, because this album/release stands for a new way of musician to consumer relationship and might be needed as indicator for other musicians/consumers. I don't know of any open source released album dedicated from/to a musician playing a role in international music business. That's what makes the nature of this album special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.208.18 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve this page. It is a direct product of Trent Reznor releasing multi-track audio files of his music from With Teeth and Year Zero and it should be used as an example of his choices. It's also a great exsample of the changing climate of the music industry in our digital age. Five years ago something like this would have simply not been thought of, but thanks to Trent embracing his fans, and the internet, it is possible now. R Landgren (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, devoid of content, serves little purpose other than promotional.

1 != 2 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Blend

AfDs for this article:
The Blend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio show on a community radio station. Creator (and the only editor adding content) shares a name with the host of the radio show. A prior AfD ended early when the article was deleted due to copyright violations. Vanispamcruftvertisement. Precious Roy 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion and the article is just one big list. MortimerCat (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a long list. Not much else in the way of content.
    1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:31, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Page

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

Local radio news reporter, not notable outside Southern California. Also, 8 months on notability list without improvement. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 16:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Lianne Tabuyo

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

Properly cited source linked which mentions this person. However I'm not certain that a local newspaper article about a school group painting bicycle racks is sufficient to establish

notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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


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.

☎ 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Daventry (King's Quest)

AfDs for this article:
Daventry (King's Quest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet

reliable sources, its still not notable. Collectonian (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been added to the
    list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 10 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. -

Mailer Diablo 08:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Atomic County

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

Non-notable in-universe item

βcommand 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced.
    talk) 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD A7) While Andy Kahn may be notable, that doesn necessarily mean his company is. — Caknuck (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxroxx music

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

Non-notable, only one google result other than Wikipedia. Prod tag was removed. --

Snigbrook (talk) 01:00, 5 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Routes list of KMB in 1979

Routes list of KMB in 1979 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of bus routes from a random year with no claim of

WP:NOT#INFO, prod removed, Delete This is a Secret account 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was No consensus to delete, improvement needed in the form of citations.

1 != 2 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Colt (Supernatural)

The Colt (Supernatural) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Also including:

Singer Salvage Yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No real-world context or claimed notability, fails

Miremare 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy A7 Delete. the_undertow talk 03:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middix

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

Software currently only in alpha release. No assertion of notability. Prod contested by author without explanation. eaolson (talk) 00:33, 5 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lingoes

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

Article was wrongly deleted twice as un-contested

prod
, so this is a procedural listing. No opinion.

The first prod reason back in August was "Article gives no indication of

T» 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment there is more content in the older edits that have been restored but still nothing to indicate notability. --
Snigbrook (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was no consensus. Those working on this list might want to consider adding some brief information about the bands listed so that it goes beyond what the category provides - at the moment the only extra info related to the bands' nationalities. WjBscribe 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of doom metal bands

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

The list has no refs and it's content is already in

Funeral 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Why is it valuable? It's worthless - cats are better and easier to maintain than lists. And why is showing nationality important?
    Funeral 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Would be much better served as category. Take for example Rock Groups, it has its own category and can even be broken down further (nationality or genre). That is what needs to happen here. This article is completely unsourced and impossible to maintain as well. --Cyrus Andiron 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Duplicates an existing category. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think lists are useful and are capable of more than categories. This list definitely needs some work, but just because categories are easier to maintain and what not, that doesn't make them better. Plus if a regular person if looking for lists of x-type bands, they would not only find the lists more appealing than categories, but would probably find the list before they found the category. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not necessarily, only 6 articles link to the list, whereas there are 175 band pages with the cat.
    Funeral 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - "There's many lists like this" isn't a valid reason. Some of those lists are being deleted: [54] [55] [56] And every page needs sources, that's how this website works.
    Funeral 19:49, 8 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

WP:SNOW keep. Nominator nominating to prove a point. Will (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Khan Noonien Singh

Khan Noonien Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks real-world notability. Ejfetters (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would think there would be more real-world notability as others state this is a major character in the film, but without it is should be deleted, see
    WP:WAF Ejfetters (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • EXCUSE ME? "others state this is a major character" -- you mean Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan wasn't enough of a tipoff? Strong Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 December 2007
  • Strong Keep The movie is real world notability enough. All characters of major motion pictures have their own articles, this one should be no different. Johnred32 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All characters from major motion pictures do not have their own articles. The character needs real-world notability, e.g casting, critical acclaim, fan reception, character development. Many of the other Trek articles, including Picard for instance, have had real-world notability added to their articles and made a focal point on the article. Ejfetters (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per his numerous appearances in Star Trek, especially Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appearances alone dont constitute keeping -
      WP:WAF - do we have some real-world notability? If not delete, maybe merge with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Ejfetters (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep character is famous. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, doesn't seem to have any out of universe notability despite multiple appearances in the series. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heck with it. Keep per consensus, character seems to have a notable role, which at least in theory would indicate some real world notability. (Forgive me, I don't know a thing about Star Trek...) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep character is notable both within Star Trek fandom and among broader science fiction community. Rillian (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You yourself admitted that there is real-world notability for this character. Whether it is currently asserted in the article is really irrelevant to the deletion discussion if even the nominator agrees that it exists. Incorporating it into the article is a
    WP:DEADLINE still applies. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This whole thing is null if someone just will find the real-world notability that so many say he does and just add it to the article. I said he is so popular he should have real world notability. Character development, critical acclaim, fan reception, cultural impact, casting/development. These are all real-world subjects that can make the article real-world, and these should be the primary source - good examples are Jean-Luc Picard, Jadzia Dax, and Kathryn Janeway - articles that have been improved to remove in-universe issues. Its possible for this character too, then I will even withdraw my nomination. Ejfetters (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never said I know, I said I would think - big difference there. Ejfetters (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - One word: KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!! --
    talk)) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The article needs editing to establish real-world notability, but the subject is certainly notable, even if the article needs to be edited. Rray (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the few definite keeps I have encountered in AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply because the "real-world" notability isn't mentioned in the article, instead of recommending DELETION why don't you do some research and add the information yourself? will381796 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With due respect will381796, I'm not sure that this is the proper response here. It is incumbent on all editors to do research in areas where they have experience and background, as well as the responsibility of all editors to nominate articles which potentially don't belong for nomination. Just because Ejfetters felt this article was a candidate for deletion does not make it their personal responsibility to conduct research. The purpose of this forum is to reach a consensus on nominations that are either appropriate or possibly in error. Please don't take this personally. I just don't think that its proper to charge every nominator with the responsibility of researching every possible article for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This character is well-entrenched in American pop culture. --Polaron | Talk 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recently, User:Uncle G has been adding a lot of real-world content to the article. He has added an entire new section on character analysis and has given a lot of referenced information to the article. In addition, all of this is written in an out-of-universe style. The article really has improved a lot in the three and a half hours that it has been up for deletion. I may disagree with deleting it, but apparently putting it up for deletion was the spur needed to get someone to do something about the lack of real-world content. Unless someone can find something seriously wrong with the changes, or can find another thing wrong with the article as a whole, I think this discussion may be over. Johnred32 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I see your point, keep in mind that nominating an article for deletion in order to force its improvement is essentially an abuse of process. Unfortunately, it's an abuse that too often goes unchecked, and those of us who would much rather work within the confines of proper practice are faced with the difficult decision of improving these articles and thus encouraging the abuse or leaving them be and risk the inappropriate removal of improvable content that would otherwise be appropriate. It kind of makes me think that
      WP:ATA should probably be elevated to guideline status, if only to discourage this kind of abuse. But that's another can of worms entirely. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep, ridiculously notable if only because of http://www.khaaan.com/. Probably the best-known of all the Star Trek villain characters (as opposed to races, e.g. Klingons), and the nom should really have known that. AFD is not cleanup even if it may be abused to have that effect. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the community as a whole: I think there are some comments being made that can be interpreted as bordering on being a bit mean spirited to Ejfetters. Just because this editor felt the article might lack the credentials to be an article is not reason to engage in attacks, no matter how subtle or unintended, toward the nominator. Its pretty clear there is consensus to keep, but that does not give license to attack someone for the nomination. Please remember to keep your ideas focused on the article, not the person making the nomination. Peace. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for that moment of Esperanza zen, but I stand by my criticism. This was a poorly considered nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone, especially Johnred32. Also, come on, it's Khan Noonien Singh. Maxamegalon2000 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all Doc Strange (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Clear and obvious real-world notability. Powers T 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a noteable character from a very well-known series/franchise. Majoreditor (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Please use common sense when nominating articles for deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hnsampat and improvements to the article. Khan is too prominent a villain. Is is time for
    WP:SNOWBALL? • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as a major film character in a major film in a major franchise that has articles on far less notable characters. I have to echo the comment above that nominating any article for AFD just to spur improvments is an inappropriate and troubling way of doing things. AFD (and PROD) nominations are too often the results of hair triggers as it is. 23skidoo (talk) 03:20, 7 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doostang

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

Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 5 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 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lwaxana Troi

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

Minor character, article has no real-world notability. Would be better served with a merger, but others keep removing the merger tag. Ejfetters (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's good that you appreciate there may in fact be sources. It is not good that you are treating AFD as some kind of coached cleanup process. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as one of the most important recurring characters in Star Trek. She's also portrayed by Gene Roddenberry's wife, which gives the character a significant amount of external notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't understand how who portrays the character adds significant notability. The article is about Lwaxana Troi, not Majel Barrett. another user has already stated the real-world notability that he found, maybe someone should try incorporating it into the article now. Ejfetters (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I disagree, I don't think she's more notable then say, Q or Guinan, she merely added some comic relief except for a couple of episodes when the plot somewhat revloved around her. Ejfetters (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you admit there were episodes where the plot revolved around her, why are you trying to remove her article?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the article has no real-world notability, that is in-universe notability. You found real-world notability, why haven't you added it to the article? Ejfetters (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why don't you take your own advice and add yourself, since you want it so badly?
  • Another excerpt from a paper: "At the opposite end of the feminine spectrum is the character of the telepathic extraterrestrial Lwaxana Troi, the hormonally crazed, menopausal mother of Deanna. Whereas characterization in The Next Generation is encoded and hence decoded accordi ng to the conventions of realism, Lwaxana's character is rendered in the exaggerated conventions of burlesque comedy and hence comes across as a tasteless sexist joke. Not only is she the bane of her daughter's existence, she is also a sexual predator wh o functions as justification for the latent misogyny of the scripts she inhabits. In addition, as she repeatedly reminds us in her imperious way, she is the daughter of the Fifth House, Holder of the Sacred Challice of Rixx, and Heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed. She is also notorious for her rude and dismissive remarks about other humanoid species. Thus, as the exaggerated focus of elitism and racism, she draws our attention away from these qualities as they exist in their normative form in the other characters. Indeed, in one episode Captain Picard and the other officers, whose male protection she seeks, can abandon her with impugnity to a repulsive and lecherous Ferengi kidnapper."--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you listing this here, add it to the article, thats the reason we are arguing. Ejfetters (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Per others. Article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs material added to it. Needing improvement does not equate to needing deletion. Rray (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The character does have notability in universe, and I agree given the one actress to play the role and her relationship to the creator of the series, that this is a notable fictional character. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying it should be kept against policy ? I don't understand, on one hand you say it's notable in the fictional universe, but the policy is that there must real world notability, I don't understand your position. Jackaranga (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think policy has been satisfied (from what I can tell).
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) is, as the manual sates, a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule. It does state the key notability guideline as a need for secondary sources. I think User:SarekOfVulcan has established that there is secondary source work available. Is it tenuous? I would agree, but I think this might be an article that at least deserves some time to establish that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:42, 5 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 (but move to gender inequality per naming conventions). — TKD::Talk 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Inequality

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

Basically a fork (likely biased, too, haven't read through it) of the various thing at Gender gap. Circeus (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; half of it is already covered in
    Income disparity and Sexual dimorphism. It does mention social disparity, so I'm wondering if that could be salvaged... Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect someone might search for it under this term, so instead of deleting it, I suggest a redirect to Gender gap. --Arcanios (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the capitalization issue? Circeus (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be moved to Gender inequality, then redirected. As it isn't a title, most people won't be searching for Gender Inequality. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Someone would almost certainly search this item. Twenty Years 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gender inequality is an independent topic and a major research area in its own right. It has its own foundational theories. Several theorists, for example, propose that gender inequality is the underlying basis for all other forms of social inequality. There's much more to gender inequality than just income disparities, and sexual dimorphism is a related but separate concept. Valerius (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid
    gap in Wikipedia's coverage, and wasn't given a chance to improve. The article already has 11 sources, which is much more than Wikipedia articles that have existed for years. Bláthnaid 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Valerius and Blathnaid. --JayJasper (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Valerius, Blathnaid, and JayJasper. Good information source for students, references helpful for finding more in-depth works, possibly change so that it can be searched with all lower case letters as well--TarheelD (talk) 03:47, 8 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 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

905 music scene

905 music scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't a genuine, unified music scene, but an

Durham Region scene of Cuff the Duke, frex. The article also tried to claim 905-ness for bands that are more properly associated with Toronto, such as Metric and Broken Social Scene. Delete as OR. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not saying there's no music originating within the 905. I'm saying there isn't an organized or recognized cultural thing which any segment of the music industry or the media refers to as "the 905 music scene". What actually exists is about five separate and independent music scenes within the 905 region, none of which are particularly connected to each other under any larger cultural umbrella. The music certainly exists — but "905 music scene" is not a recognized name for the cultural context in which anybody named in this article operates. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, current state governor, bad faith nom. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Blagojevich

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

unfamed person. Not well known outside small areas of the midwest User:Theyipper32 17:44 UTC Dec. 5. 2007

  • Keep, seems to be fairly well sourced. I don't know much about politics but this guy seems to have enough cred. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This has to be a joke. He is the current governor of the state of Illinois, thus he is notable. --Cyrus Andiron 17:53, 5 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 — Caknuck (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneman and Volk

Stoneman and Volk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The speedy deletion request is contested by the author. However, nothing indicates that this relatively small law firm (as mentioned in the article) would be notable enough for having an article. No reliable, third-party, published sources are provided. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 5 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPlay Golf

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

I don't know much about golf, but I do know that one media mention does not satisfy notability requirements. All of user's contributions seem to be in the interest of promoting this. Perhaps worth noting is the site's banner now includes "Recognized by Wikipedia! OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2008, he devised and launched PowerPlay Golf a shortened version of golf in a bid to create golf's version of Twenty20 cricket
That means there is no PowerPlay Golf activity yet, and therefore the game is not yet notable. Far from it. Let's wait for the game to catch on before having a Wikipedia article on it. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need to be popular, it needs to be notable, ie reported on by multiple non trivial RS. I found such references in seconds. --Dweller (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough reliable third party sources to warrant retention of the article. Congratulations to Dweller for his clean up work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ditto on third party sources. Sting_au Talk 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As per Capitalistroadster.Sunderland06 (talk) 14:54, 10 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.
  1. ^ card shark - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  2. ^ cardsharp - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  3. ^ For responses to the Insight report, see: Kirkpatrick, David D (January 29, 2007). "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even If It's False". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-30. "Obama, School Deny Radical Islam Claim" (video). Associated Press. WPVI-TV Philadelphia (ABC). January 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
  4. ^ Smith, Ben (October 13, 2007). "Untraceable E-mails Spread Obama Rumor". Politico. Retrieved 2007-11-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) See also: Zeleny, Jeff (November 10, 2007). "Obama Fights Foes, Seen or Otherwise". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-18. Hayes, Christopher (November 12, 2007). "The New Right-Wing Smear Machine". Nation. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_5&oldid=1081099084"