Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no claim of direct notabilty, no sources to boot as well.

Keith sorensen

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

Memorial to a non-notable person Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Professional Spring Football League

nn football league that was never formed, only 76 direct google hits that isn't duplicates, even less discounting wikipedia and it's mirrors, and none of them meet

For "verifiable" information about the league: [[1]] Dletter 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I didn't type in PSFL, just the full name, closing
    ^Sports! 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep As Dletter notes correctly, the league did organize, arrange schedules, lease stadiums, sell tickets, sign players to contracts, pay salaries, and even held training camps.... but folded a few weeks before its first scheduled game, which I recall was going to be on February 29, 1992. I don't think any failed sports league ever came THAT close to playing a game. As for the "Google" test of notability, it's excellent for current events but NOT for yesterday's news. For instance, take a cruise ship that sank in 1912 with the loss of over 1,000 lives... no, not THAT one, but the Japanese ship "Kiche Maru", which sank in September 1912. If you don't find many google hits, do you conclude that the sinking of the Kiche Maru is not notable? Anyway, ghits are not always the measure of notability. I wish Dletter had voted on this one, but he's right on the money. Mandsford 13:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandahl 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy energy drink

Healthy energy drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like some

• Delete - as
  WP:OR, and not very accurate research either, e.g. how can an energy drink be low calorie? It's a contradiction in terms. ---- WebHamster 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Healthy Energy Drinks get their title by using something other than sugar for the temporary "sugar high" that the old energy drinks had. B Vitamins are the very things the human body uses to use the energy already consumed, and does so naturally. Abnormally high amounts of caffeine are not only potentially harmful, but are known to produce dehydration, since caffeine is also a diuretic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.101.51 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.166.101.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Calories are not a measurement of sugar, it's a measurement of energy, ergo regardless of the energy source it still needs to be high in calories to supply the "energy". As I said, not very accurate research. ---- WebHamster 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Not sure if it is OR or spam due to the link in the text. Also, widely inaccurate in places, the drinks don't use sugar because that is bad, instead they use sucrose??? Whichever, this isn't a Wikipedia article.
  Nuttah68 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Ad
  drive-by hit-and-run and snake oil advertising method where one plants the desired thought, and then denies it in the fine print for legal purposes (What? No! Who said that? Ha-ha!...). If there is anything encyclopedic, notable, neutral, and verifiable in the article, then it can be deposited at the Red Bull, Energy drink, or Sports drink pages. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All voters for delete should categorically deny with a yes or no the following : They are receiving kickbacks of any sort ( any benefit or money ) from any company , like a drink maker, whether they claim to produce "energy drinks" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.166.57 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.132.166.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Come off it, there is no conspiracy. While I would like to get paid for this, I'm not. --Pekaje 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why just the voters for "keep", why not everyone, including you? Just to keep the playing field level of course. Or better yet, why not just you declaring your vested interests? The rest of us will maintain decorum and debate as adults. ---- WebHamster 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. No ability to get
  conflict of interest. Bearian 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per part OR and part advertisement.--JForget 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articulated Body Pose Estimation (Computer Vision)

Articulated Body Pose Estimation (Computer Vision) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

This article represents a general description of the technologies related to extracting articulated body pose, human body pose included. A google search of terms "articulated body pose estimation" reveals 238,000 [1] and google scholar returns 6180 ^[2]. This appears to satisfy the coverage requirement. Shinko Cheng 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Google scholar finds many articles on this subject, well more than enough sources to write a good article. Very few of the first few hits look trivial. Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? That would have been a mistake, I think. —David Eppstein 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you feel strongly about it, it would be nice if you'd add some good references. MarkBul 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is that there are so many relevant looking references that one couldn't possibly cite them all, and it would take a lot of effort and subject-specific knowledge to work them down to a good representative subset. But an overabundance of sources is not exactly a good reason to delete... —David Eppstein 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the nominator searched only for the exact phrase in the article's title? Sadly, this is exactly what I did. Considering your Google Scholar results, I'll just withdraw the nomination and remember to search a little more throughly before putting an article to AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep AfD should not be used to prod for references. Numerous Ghits completely contradicts the nom--strongly suggest withdrawal. Dhaluza 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just attended a talk (loosely) on this topic, and while I don't have the expertise to do much with this article, notability seems pretty clear. Very central issue in computer vision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonen

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

Not a dictionary.

• Delete per nom.
  ^T/C 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, dictionary definition, not so widely known that it deserves an article Fg2 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism, don't transwiki. -- Hoary 01:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.
  Scarian^Talk 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a dictionary entry, doesn't seem all that notable either. Bhimaji 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates
  WP:N per Bhmaji. Bearian 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in agreement with the above. --Fire Star 火星 05:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield, Simpsons

Springfield, Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Not needed. Tyler Warren 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3 and it is empty as well and as nom stated not necessary. Maybe it can be redirected as well to the Simpsons--JForget 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per JForget, a redirect in its place sounds sensible.
  Scarian^Talk 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Either redirect to Springfield (The Simpsons) or just delete. The current version has never had any content due to a speedy deletion of the previous creation. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Butler (streetball player)

Kevin Butler (streetball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very marginal claim to notability, but probably not enough for inclusion. No references and a Google search on "Kevin Butler" and streetball gives very few hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. I didn't see anything that looked like a

Pekaje, unfortunately ESPN no longer owns cityslamtv.com, which was the official ESPN site for the City Slam television show. It's now a tribute site to the show, but I managed to find a cached google page of his former bio page. I added other reference links as well, including clips of the actual television show I found on YouTube. I feel Butler is notable because he has appeared for two seasons on a television show which aired on ESPN. I would not mind this being merged or redirected into a City Slam article, if somebody would write one.--Section8pidgeon 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There was a time when streetball (basketball played outside) wasn't that notable outside of local legend. Now these guys have sponsors and professional contracts and their own touring "crews" (teams) like AND1 or YPA. As with beach volleyball, streetball has its own celebrities. There probably should be a standard for what's considered notable within the streetball community, although the laissez-faire process may take care of that. Mandsford 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely weak, anemic keep. The sources are about as poor as the come. An appearance one time on a TV show doesn't equal notability in my judgment. However it does have one source that is reliable as far as I can tell so I would let it stay.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info about Butler playing in 1995 for the San Francisco Pilots of the

• Delete lack of reliable sources, the ABA is a minor league as well. Blahblahme 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ABA isn't a minor league. It's a basketball league in its own right, with it's own Wikipedia article.--Section8pidgeon 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a minor league, all minor leagues has wikipedia articles. 131.94.145.132 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since he played one or more games in an
  Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports)#Basketball, which mentions ABA specifically. If I didn't have the guideline to work from, I would just say 'Weak Keep.' EdJohnston 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changed my vote to Delete because, as the IP explains below, the draft guideline is referring to the original ABA, not the new league that was created in 2000, which seems to be considered a minor league. If Kevin Butler's performance on the new ABA team attracts third-party comment, then the article might be re-created. EdJohnston 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It talks about the ABA of the 1970s, not the current ABA 131.94.145.132 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Overall im seeing more grounds to kep rather than delete, there is notability and im sure more things could be found to expand it if people looked so it should stay --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability under
  WP:SPORTS established as per EdJohnston and other references in the article. Noroton 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have removed the article from the "American basketball players" catagory, since he doesn't seem to qualify. I'm having the article stand alone under the "Street basketball players" catagory. As a street basketball, or streetball player, I feel he is notable for having appeared on ESPN City Slam for 2 seasons. To appear on television is pretty much the highest level in streetball. I am in the process of creating an article for City Slam. --Section8pidgeon 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Freeze and Thaw on The Gatineau River

Freeze and Thaw on The Gatineau River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original interpretation of unsourced data. Written as to suggest the author collected the data. The subject is somewhat trivial. Alksub 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:OR. The thing that amazes me is how the river knows when it's December 25th and April 6th. ---- WebHamster 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above, maybe some elements about the freeze and thaw maybe mentionned to the main article (if sourced).--JForget 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if the article wasn't complete original research, what would its importance be? The main article on Gatineau River doesn't say if there's any impact to shipping or other river usage when the river freezes. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article really doesn't establish that this particular phenomenon is notable for any reason. Even if sources can be found suggesting that the freezing and thawing of the river affects its usage or something, I think it still only deserves a mention in the main article, rather than its own article.--Danaman5 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it sounds like an interesting, ongoing school project. However, there are no sources and no establishment of why the freezing of the river is important and needs its own article.
  Nuttah68 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge it or dunk it in Gatineau River. It definitely isn't worthy of its own article. If there's a freeze and thaw of the Amazon River or the Congo River, that might be notable. Mandsford 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's original research. Note that there's nothing to merge once the original research is removed. -- Whpq 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. — Edokter • Talk • 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todor Skalovski

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

Delete:based on same information and same reasons as "probable" wife Marija Skalovska; see [2] Watchingthevitalsigns 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources in English establish a career that is notable. Article being a stub is no reason for deletion.
  Nuttah68 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I withdraw previous comments as I finally accessed the link (it was my lousy ISP) and the info on Skalovski appears complete and notable. Admin: Please withdraw this nomination for deletion. Sorry. Thanks!! Watchingthevitalsigns 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'll just be bold and redirect this to Lee Carroll. If there is anything I can salvage I'll summarise it in his article. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kryon

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

)

Not entirely sure how it was not removed 2+ years ago, but I can't see the notability of this. Tagged since December 2005 as OR/unreferenced this article contains far too much content that is not covered by reputable third party sources. Redirecting this to Lee Carroll would probably be the best option. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To address the points of the Google test raised in the previous deletion discussion it is clear that "Kryon" returns a plethora of unrelated sites. Adding the word "channelling" does yield other sites that are related, however. I think there is some element of notability here but I don't think that the article in its current state should remain. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In the absence of reliable sources merge into articles on author and books (if they are notable) where appropriate then redirect. This article at the moment is unsupported OR.
  Nuttah68 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please check the article on the author first--the merge, though not in my opinion a bad idea, would change the nature of the article.DGG (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I don't think the content is worthy of inclusion, but the concept is worth mentioning at the author's article and this article redirected there. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article is the subject of the humor page Wikipedia:Huge message boxes, a parody of tag madness written in May 2005. I got here when I checked up on the article's current status, and I was amazed to find that not only does it still have about as many templates, it's under AFD yet again! szyslak 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I took a look at merging the content, but the referencing is too weak. I'm open to discussion if someone else wants to pursue it.--

Rizzo: Year One

Rizzo: Year One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No

• Delete I can't find any notability on this one, or on the Rizzo article. Some of the links are dead, and at least one bounces to the guy's own site - that's naughty! Assertion of publication, but no references. Google didn't help either. Unless someone can come up with some legitimate references, this is a definite delete. MarkBul 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rizzo. It sounds like this isn't a self-published book. I think we might need some time to look at both this and Rizzo altogether, and possibly come back to AfD if we still come up with zero. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, shows up on amazon.com, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979452406/ with "BookSurge Publishing" as the publisher (which is different than what the article claims). -- Ned Scott 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I couldn't find out anything about "KCU Comix & Boox", but books published by BookSurge Publishing clearly count as self-published: The author pays them for publishing, not the other way round. Ned Scott: AfD runs for 5 days. How long do you expect we need before we conclude there are no sources whatsoever? Please note that some of the article's assertions have been tagged as unreferenced for over a month without improvement. Huon 09:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I meant to look at sources for Rizzo. It seems pretty clear that, merge or delete, Rizzo: Year One won't stay as it's own article. If Rizzo overall is notable for it's own article, I could see a small section for this book at the parent article, but it could be that we need to bring Rizzo to AFD as well. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rizzo. I'm the prod-remover here. Seeing as how the book has been shown to be self-published (which doesn't necessarily make it non-notable, mind), a merge into the parent seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just doesn't have the notability, sorry. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete per nomination --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reliably sourced material into Rizzo as per UsaSatsui. Noroton 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BookSurge is a self-publisher like lulu.com, and there are no reliable sources that comment on this book. So this one fails to meet any of criteria 1-5 in
  WP:BK. EdJohnston 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge If the main article is notable, then this is an acceptable subpart.
  Mbisanz 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alabamaboy 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Suckley

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

Appears to be non-notable. She was the close friend of a president, nothing else. Aqwis 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per a lack of notability. A single feature in the Times does not meet the definition of significant coverage.
  Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Single feature in the Times? Please note the other nine references in the article, including an entire book: Closest Companion: The Unknown Story of the Intimate Friendship Between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley by

TreeKittens 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, the Suckley-Roosevelt letters were published in a 1995 book that received considerable attention at the time (because it was a surprise to even close historians of FDR). The letters themselves were once in the collection of Conrad Black.[3] At worst merge and redirect to Wilderstein, the mansion she owned until her death. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that all of her notability is inherited. She fails to be important when taken solely on her own history and sourcing. While there are notable and useful facts pertaining to her life, they seem to be more relevant for other subjects (such as the FDR, mansion, and book articles) rather than in a biography revolving around her.
  Talk 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notability per
  TreeKittens 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  TreeKittens 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  TreeKittens 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep per
  Sarcasticidealist 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep well sourced and books have been written on her and her relationship with a president. This does not fall under a notability is not inherited banner, that is to cover trivial mentions. Suckley is a central character here.
  Nuttah68 08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Communicable Scale

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

Contested PROD. Dictionary Definition. TexasAndroid 20:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced violation of
  Talk 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as an unreferenced neologism. 12 GHits including Wikipedia and mirrors, those independent have definitions totally different to that given here.
  Nuttah68 08:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, completely unreferenced, and, does not assert notability. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

)

Not a dictionary. Tyler Warren 20:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly a violation of
  Talk 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no transwiki needed; see wiktionary:abbatial. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Dicdef.--Danaman5 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Delete. I think no explanation is required! --
  ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. IDIFTL 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Paul Ben Germain

Paul Ben Germain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense, poorly written Tyler Warren 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy. Non-notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely not a notable producer.--JForget 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one documentary with school awards - fails notability. However, this will be an interesting subject to keep an eye on. Rklawton 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fag bangle

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

Non-notable slang term, and this couldn't be expanded beyond a

The following comment was originally posted by me on my talk page, reposting it here for clarity:

Welcome to Wikipedia! I nominated your article for deletion because I don't think that the cultural significance of the term is big enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. It arguably couldn't be expanded much beyond a

WP:NEO and consider whether this is really worth an article. Cheers, Melsaran 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - the reasons are probably best explained by contrasting it to
  neologism that hasn't found wide use. Huon 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Beyond that, the Ugly Betty reference probably came from a writer who watched Ab Fab, with little or no use in between. I heard fag hag used in the mid-Seventies - I'm sure it goes back a lot longer than that. If and when this one catches on in the same way, it can be added. MarkBul 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious and
  Talk 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per VanTucky. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki or whatever it is they call it when something gets transferred to the Wiktionary part of this site. Author's explanation of the term makes for a good dictionary definition of this neologism, which kind of equates to a "token" gay man that a woman includes when she says "some of my best friends are gay". This actually may be an article somewhere, since it's not uncommon. Just as guys get along better with lesbians than most women do, a lot of women enjoy the company of gay men, and it's seen in film (as in Blast From the Past where Alicia Silverstone and Dave Foley share a house) or in TV (where Jack, Janet and Chrissy put on a charade in Three's Company) Mandsford 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they would accept an entry like this at Wiktionary. See
    talk) 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as violating
  WP:NEO, per nom by Melsaran. Bearian 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Hello Tomorrow

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

The article was originally prodded with the following note: "No proof of notability. Unless Spike Jonze's influence allows it." As the creator of the article, I respectfully disagree, but it's only fair to bring it to the community for discussion. In my eyes, the notability is readily apparent- this commercial was directed by an Oscar nominee and scored by a Grammy nominee, and it has won an incredible number of awards in the advertising industry (as stated in the article and external links)- and many of these awards are notable enough to have already had their own (uncontested) articles. So, obviously my !vote is strong keep, but as this was a contested prod, the AfD should hopefully determine consensus. Kicking222 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - winning multiple significant awards clearly is notable, though some additional sources might be desirable - those we have aren't quite what I'd call
  reliable (excepting Rolling Stone, of course, but that's not truly about the ad). Huon 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I agree with Huon. J Milburn 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Igero bus

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

This appears to be a non-notable bus. Even if third-party sources can be established (I can't find any:[5]), than we still have

Strong keep So, what it's a non-notable bus? The company started only 3 years ago this bus, let the people know about it. Does it so much heart to have an article about this bus? --Igero bus 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advertisement, and I was unable to find sources that could verify any notability. --Pekaje 16:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first it has to become notable. Classic instance of COI. DGG (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons. My Nexis search yielded absolutely no hits, sorry. HG | Talk 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertising. Biruitorul 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Mushroom. J Milburn 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan kelly

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

Some highly dubious claims to fame (given virtually no hits on Google). Also some material that could be libelous if not sourced, plus some general nonsense. Pekaje 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song)

The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Search (

• wp
• g
• b

)

Note to closer - User:Pigsonthewing, the top contributor to Traffic (band) per Stats, was banned by ArbCom from editing Wikipedia for a year. Hopefully, that has no bearing on this matter, but I am noting it just in case. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The title track from a very well known and notable album. There's enough information in the article to maintain a stub category that would bog down the main album article. ---- WebHamster 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See also DRV request relating to prior PROD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, allmusic calls it "one of Traffic's greatest songs", presumably others have thought so as well. (As a separate issue, I'm unsure why we need a disambiguation page for two related items, and the DRV poster seemed to think the same way.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge backl to the album article. Just because we can have an article doesn't mean we should - this says very little about the song, and does not establish why we should care. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep per
  this guideline if (and only if) some sources can be found proving that Phish, Widespread Panic, et al have covered it. Though to be honest I think this should probably just be merged with the album whether it's notable or not. faithless (^speak) 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here's the WSP one. CitiCat ^♫ 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well-known song. Corvus cornix 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The album article is tiny - there's plenty of room there. It wouldn't be possible to make the album page so big that you'd need to split out single songs. If someone searches, they'll find the song entry wherever it is. MarkBul 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable song from a notable album from a notable band. Alansohn 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As original proposer of this AfD obviously I have an interest but will try & keep NPOV. The original objection to for deleting page (perhaps I should have proposed a merge) mentioned 'popular on college radio'. My days on college radio are long gone, but I would regard that as a minority audience. The song has been covered by Phish & Widespread Panic; however, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds being covered by William Shatner would not, in itself, be a reason for a separate article on LSWD. --Rodhullandemu 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cause I like the song ...but... Comment there are thousands of "XXXX (song)" articles on WP (eg. like this Yikes!!), could a guideline be made for future reference in these cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia talk:Notability_(music)#Songs. No consensus has been reached. Corvus cornix 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AfD? --Rodhullandemu 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could I just ask here which part(s) of

WP:NPOV here, but it would make better sense and logic to me that if there is only one track on an album that is important (and I won't multiply examples), and that track can be properly, and efficiently, addressed as a sub-heading of the parent album page, without clogging the page, then it belongs there. I know I'm fairly new to WP editing but, OTOH, there is little I've seen that makes this track out of the ordinary, good though it is. In fact, I'm listening to it right now. --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't using the link as an argument in this discussion, but in answer to User:Exit2DOS2000's request for a guideline. Corvus cornix 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: the song itself has a separate review at AllMusic, which is not all that common, suggesting above-average notability. The song appears on two concert films. [6] [7] It didn't chart, but then pop songs over 10 minutes long rarely do. The information about bands that have covered it (a list which also includes
  reliable sources. (I also personally own a legal-bootleg of a Gov't Mule cover, so I may have some bias here.) This is the title track of the most popular album by a very influential band for its time. Overall, I'd say a borderline case, but for a song of this vintage, not all sources are necessarily going to be readily available on-line, and I'd say that the evidence strongly suggests that more sources exist. (And I know that "otherstuffexists" isn't an valid argument, but if we have an article about a brief set of sound effects....) Xtifr _tälk 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Notable song from a notable band. Often covered by other bands (I have added references of this in the article). Brianga 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You would have done if you had added a "references" heading, but I have now done this for you --Rodhullandemu 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Traffic induction page says - "The brooding, jazzy “Low Spark of High Heeled Boys” - which ran for over 11 minutes - triggered Traffic’s greatest popularity." CitiCat ^♫ 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Balloons

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

I nomed for speedy delete twice, both times the tag was removed. Please delete. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "The Early Balloons Website was created by two High School kids who update blog entries about various things, most often ranting about these things". No indication of notability, that's why. Mandsford 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like an attempt to publicise the website & therefore inadmissible as External link spamming. --Rodhullandemu 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:WEB. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Shadowwraith34 (talk · contribs) has been given a warning not to remove speedy deletion templates, but Ignatzmice ought to have given a more robust deletion rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just something
  made up in school one day. faithless (^speak) 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete - Obviously not suitable for WP. It is considered vandalism for the author to remove the speedy tag from the article like that. When that happens, just issue template warnings and restore the speedy tag - once they go past the final warning, report them to AIV. The Behnam 02:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-added the speedy tag with an explanation. The Behnam 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buchter

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

Player has not appeared at top, major-league level Fbdave 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Is the rookie league a fully professional league? If so, he passes the
  notability guideline for athletes. faithless (^speak) 21:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes. It's the lowest professional level of the minor league system, but it is "fully professional" per the guideline. If minor league players are considered notable, then he qualifies. --UsaSatsui 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per my comment above.--UsaSatsui 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing comment for now while I suss this one over.--UsaSatsui 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Playing in a fully professional league does not mean that he is notable. It is only a guideline. Is there anything else notable about him? Fbdave 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players, most minor league players are not considered notable. Fbdave 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the two pages are in conflict. Hmmm. I'll have to sort out which one I agree with more.--UsaSatsui 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the rookie leagues aren't even considered to be fully proffesional, it fails the proposed
  WP:SPORTS guidelines. Blahblahme 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Um...you're either a professional, or you're not. They get paid to play, they're professional baseball players. --UsaSatsui 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yeah...I'm going to have to conclude that when you're this deep in the system, you need something else to make you stand out (such as a high draft number or whatnot)--UsaSatsui 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rookie leagues are professional. While I applaud the Baseball project, it does not set standards for articles. That is done on a global basis by all editors. Of all the players who play at the highest amateur level (which is notable I think), only a small group make it to the minor leagues. I would keep. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Acually 50 rounds of players with over a thousand players drafted per year, easily anyone who started in college, or was very good in high school aren't a "small group". The rookie leagues are more semi-proffesional than anything, it tells if a player is good enough to go a higher league, or if they are just a fluke. It's too soon for creating articles on them. Blahblahme 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm gonna say have to say no on this guy, fails proposed
  WP:SPORTS guidelines.. No sources other than Baseball Cube. Wait till he at least makes AA. Spanneraol 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, fails
  WP:BASEBALL. --Truest blue 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above and nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -

List of all known weapons used in hogs of war

List of all known weapons used in hogs of war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete, per WP:NOT. Article is not even well written, has no sources, is pure Cruft--Jac16888 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per
  WP:FANCRUFT. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This isnt a place for indiscriminate infomation ForeverDEAD 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balabalagan Islands

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

Non-notable, but mainly, completely unsourced. Rambutan (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did some searching and couldnt find any information about the islands. -Icewedge 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The islands apparently do exist, though there seems to be little information about them. There's no article at all on the Indonesian Wikipedia site. However, since the people here vote to keep articles on every town with a road sign, as with State Line, Pennsylvania, on the grounds that "every town is notable", then an island is more notable than a collection of houses in the middle of nowhere. Mandsford 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, geographic features such as islands are generally treated as notable. I have added references, including to alternate names, which will help anyone trying to source it further. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung Kepulauan Balabalagan generates more hits, but Little Paternoster brought up this account from Voyages in the Southern Hemisphere by John Hawkesworth who was on James Cook's first voyage. A bit choppy, apparently. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction actually it was a report of a voyage by a Captain Carteret in 1776-77, but still choppy. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Creating a Gazetteer of places and features of the world is a valid part of trying to create an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we can attempt a gazetter of the entire planet,actually I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be an official Wiki-project Gazetteer project.KTo288 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep
  Major geographical features are notable. Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary faithless (^speak) 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It has sources now.
• Keep Is now sourced and agree that geographical features are generally notable. Davewild 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and sourced. J Milburn 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per most of the above.--JForget 23:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Geographical features as islands are notable. This should've been a case of
  WP:SOFIXIT instead of AfD. --Oakshade 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leet World

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

Recreated CSD A7. Non-Notable movies made from counterstrike. -Flubeca^Talk 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable fancruft, delete under
  WP:WEB--Jac16888 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This article should not be deleted, seeing that it does meet the Notability Guidelines. I consulted the administrator that first deleted the article, and he has allowed it for creation. FightingRaven531 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• —
  few or no other edits outside this topic. . -Flubeca^Talk 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - It can't be deleted under
  WP:WEB as it asserts notability. That's the problem though it only asserts it, it doesn't demonstrate it. It appears to be just another fancruft Machinima series that doesn't stand out from any other of its type. ---- WebHamster 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The Leet World has been around for approximately 41 days and has gotten approximately 139 plus users in that amount of time. In addition large sums of unregistered users each day come to watch The Leet World. It is a recognized machinima along side other machinimas such as Red vs. Blue. The real bongoboy 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• —
  few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Inclusion on Wikipedia isn't about popularity; it's about having verifiable information from reliable sources. Red vs. Blue has an article because it has been widely discussed in third-party publications, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and BBC News Online. — TKD::Talk 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. Allow recreation ONLY if it can meet
  WP:V which it can not right now. If the editors can find multiple books with a chapter about this, magazine articles about nothing but this, or national news programs reporting on this, then I would change my mine. It all boils down to national news coverage or coverage in multiple national/international magazines. If we don't have at least 2-3 sources like that (minimum) the article has to go. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete due to current lack of multiple
  reliable sources. The only link given is an interview with the creators, a primary account. Being featured on machinima.com is well and good, but, without more information, that doesn't contribute more than a sentence to the article. — TKD::Talk 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acalamari 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elemental Heroes

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

This page serves no purpose. It's nothing more than fancruft, which we strove to get rid of. Tempest115 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pure listcruft, no real world info--Jac16888 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serious listcruft, plenty original research and has no use what so ever. Kill it --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft! Kill listcruft! Kill! Kill! Noroton 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There is a small walled garden of four articles: Sid Arthur; two of his supposed novels, Cats in the Attic and Covered in Bees; and his supposed biographer, Phillip Smith (journalist). All the works referenced are unknown to Google beyond Wikipedia and answers.com. Somebody by the name of Sid Arthur is listed on imdb.com, but there's no evidence for this set of articles. It looks and smells like a hoax to me. William Avery 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice it has also been used in vandalism here William Avery 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the whole set of associated articles unless some citations can be provided that demonstrate these novels/people exist; I couldn't find any confirmation at all. Accounting4Taste 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these manifest hoaxes. (The ISBN given for the supposed paperback edition of Cats in the Attic, for instance, is actually that for an edition of A Clockwork Orange.) Get rid of the images as well. Deor 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proved otherwise this appears to be a hoax. Googling the individual "works" led back only to this article. Looking for the books on Amazon and ebay produced no hits. There were no obituaries for this individual on the websites of the UK broadsheets produced no hits, nor could an obit be found for a former "The Sun" columnist "Bustopher Jones" in that paper's website. Arthur can be found on both TV shows mentioned and the only tangible result was the IMDb entries and Sid Arthur (though IMDb can possibly be hoaxed too). An alternative spelling of Syd Arthur produced only hits for a Kent band. Checking the edit histories these articles appeared more or less in the final form the product of a single editor.KTo288 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the imdb entry is for a genuine, if minor, US TV scriptwriter with this name. There are three users: User:William_Golder, User:Sy234sn, and User:Rev Craig Gannon involved in inserting the actual hoax material. William Avery 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a Sid Arthur that was a scriptwriter on Happy Days all right, from what I can find. But he has nothing to do with the subject of this article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a hoax, and takeoff of the name Siddhartha. Calgary 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. No reliable sources; none of the works mentioned seem to have made their way to Google. If there was a Sid Arthur that was so important in the history of "Kitchen Sink" drama, and got an OBE, there would be sources online. I think this article "jumped the shark" when the IMDB link to a real Sid Arthur was added. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. The London Gazette archive shows nobody of this name receiving an OBE in any relevant year. --Rodhullandemu 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I think there's an element of an Eddie Izzard-related joke going on here ("Sid Arthur" is a minor character in one of his routines and "I'm Covered In Bees" is one of Izzard's more famous catchphrases). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to be made up. If you want a redirect target, consider Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen where SidArthur was the name of a fictional rock band. - fchd 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all evidence mentioned here. J Milburn 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Driving Around the World (TV Series)

Odyssey Driving Around the World (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Oft-deleted advert promoting a TV series yet to be. Newest attempt loses most of the ad-speak, but still not suuitable. Sourceless and non-notable, with no sign of actual real-world impact. Even spammier versions have already been speedy-deleted several times now: admins with access to deleted versions are invited to check to see for themselves to see exactly how full-blown spam buckets they were.

PROD tag added, but removed by

Spamming history

Users

• Odyssey (tv series) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ODYSSEY Driving Around the World? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - brief explanation
• Burgieman30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles

• Odyssey (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Odyssey Driving Around the World (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Throw in the "screenshot" Image:Australiagroup.jpg - odd for a video screenshot to have a resolution of 3072 × 2048 pixels and a non-standard aspect ratio of 1.5:1, no? Calton | Talk 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt this and similar name articles to prevent resurrection until the show is actually beyond the
  WP:CRYSTAL stage. I don't understand why this nomination didn't get more participation from editors. Perhaps it should be relisted. There must be a delsort link that can be added to this. Noroton 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Noroton 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, and not yt existing. Plus the COI of the creator isn't the best thing.
  Mbisanz 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. No notability whatsoever. I would recommend that the creator wait until the show airs or is covered in the media by reliable sources before attempting this again - repeatedly trying to push the article through without consensus only hurts your cause. Be Patient. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jenna Rockaway-Calabreeze

Jenna Rockaway-Calabreeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated

• Delete - Considering the "accomplishments" you'd think this person would be on every gossip page in town (and on the highway). It's got to be a hoax, and not a very credible one. Sounds like a teeny-bopper's night time fantasies.---- WebHamster 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hoax. Antonrojo 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any verification of any of these claims; apparently wish-fulfillment fantasy. Accounting4Taste 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Mangojuice^talk 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO, can't find any reliable sources.--Luis Augusto Peña ^(talk) 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per lack of notabilty and per doughnut Google results outside of Wiki.--JForget 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/no consensus (non admin)(same result)