Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 31 January 2 >

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jenkins

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

There have been notability concerns regarding this article, and it was recently nominated for speedy deletion. It doesn't cite any sources, so I brought it to AFD for other opinions. Keilana 23:29, 27 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, JERRY talk contribs 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jazz Singer DVD

The Jazz Singer DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for speedy deletion because of notability, but has been tagged and untagged at least twice. Keilana 23:48, 27 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, JERRY talk contribs 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article is quite measurably improved from the beginning of the AfD nomination. Two

WP:V sources seem adequate to keep it. I feel it could use more info and sources but I expect such could be found. Pigman☿ 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Stardance project

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

There are no independent reliable sources for this upcoming movie project. Which makes it fail

WP:CRYSTAL Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:47, 27 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, JERRY talk contribs 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability is the responsibility of the author to establish, and not the responsibility of others to 'disprove' (can't prove a negative).
talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
True, it would be nice if every author built notability assertions into their article. However, if I see that there is notability, even if the author didn't take the time to show it, I think the article should stay. While there obviously needs to be oversight on articles, and a lot need to be deleted, the purpose of the AfD discussion is to take dubious articles and see if they meet guidelines. Massive cleanup, yes. Delete, no. The bigger point here is to have notable information be included on Wiki.
Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Could you be more specific? Do you think it violates a certain Wikipedia policy, or would cleanup/rewrite/source make it more "encyclopedic"?
    Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The first three of those things can be taken care of by editing, and Tanthalas has found sources.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Redirect to

Merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Norma Starkey

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

Fails

WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:02, 27 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, JERRY talk contribs 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Changing my opinion to delete. Of course, this needs to be applied to the other dozen or so characters, each with their own Wiki page...
Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Sandnes

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

Nonnotable singer; no best-selling albums, and no references (Myspace doesn't count). The original author (see page history) has not made any other edits. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte self-promotion, no independent source material. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If it can be verified that her single went to #1 in Japan she should meet
    WP:MUSIC!--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:20, 27 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, JERRY talk contribs 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. This action is to be taken by interested editors and is not taken by the closing admin, due to lack of familiarity with the subject, and multiple target articles were suggested in the debate.

George (bus service)

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

Contested PROD. There is nothing notable about a bus route - even if it is called George. There are no references provided to show that this bus route is notable. Further such articles are difficult to accurately maintain and thus their usefulness must be questioned. Gillyweed (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Metrobus (Washington, D.C.): This is a route assigned to them under contract, but which they do not control. Also, notify the creator of the article...which is not myself. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elcom Credit Union

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

This organization no longer exists. It was merged. Link is deprecated. Pearrari (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It needs better sourcing, but it was a large credit union in its day. Going out of business doesn't mean that you aren't notable ... would you delete GTE or Western Electric?Kww (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect your perspective. To answer your question, I don't happen to feel we should keep company obituaries, even if the company was notable when it did exist. A valid reason to keep such an article would be ongoing relevance, such as a legacy of financial disaster a la Enron, a legacy of remarkable innovation, or some other remarkable ongoing economic impact such as the companies spawned by GTE, I continue to feel removal is appropriate, but we should consider evidence if you (or anyone else) can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary, updating the article so it is clear that it is still relevant. Pearrari (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once notable, always notable. History is important. Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely.
    Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Wren Nycole

AfDs for this article:
L'Wren Nycole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable fashion model. A Google search returns no results, proving unhelpful.   jj137 ♠ 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable model. The lack of hits for the name shows a complete lack of verifiability. (Note to nom: you typed in "Nicole" instead of "Nycole" in the Google search, but it doesn't matter, since "Nycole" turns up bupkis too.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article demonstrates no notability and without any external sources, is impossible to verify. --BelovedFreak 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible hoax.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost certainly a hoax. I've tagged it as A7 anyway as I can't see anything here that really seems like meeting
    WP:BIO.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classified (band)

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

Non notable band, seems to be too much claim of notability for a speedy. Google throws up nothing, but Googling is difficult due to the super-generic name, even when I try related keywords, such as the band's hometown. Prod removed by author with the comment "I have deleted the 'this article may be deleted' content as I do not believe that this article should be deleted. Classified have dveloped a large following through its myspace webpage." Article also seems to be slightly biased in favour of the band, possibly written by a band member, or a friend.J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Close. Some of these may be deletion candidates (though per previous practice, they should be redirected to school district pages), others should be tagged for merge, or may be notable. No unilateral decision can be made in a bundled AfD such as this. Editors should be

WP:BOLD in making decisions on individual articles. Controversial articles should be brought back to AfD individually.BLACKKITE 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Faxon Montessori

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

Non-notable primary school -- should be merged with school district page. Dougie WII (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also primary schools from the same school district:

Central Middle School (Kansas City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Westport Middle School (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Woodland Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

-- Dougie WII (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there are enough sources available to meet
    talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What is the process then for removing these primary schools? In the past I AfD or prod them and they were deleted or sometimes redirected/merged by whomever closed the AfD. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a process to redirect, just replace the page with #redirect target page. redirecting or merging is not the same as deletion; the prod tag was removed probably because it (as prod tags inherently do) proposed deletion. —Random832 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most (but not all) editors regard high schools as notable and they are nearly always kept at AfD. All editors regard elementary/middle schools as having no inherent notability consequently the proposed criteria at
    talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I can verify that in the greater Kansas City area, most of the usual news outlets do not provide free access to archives older than 5 or 10 days. There is a big business in this region that resells access to this type of local archived news content. The fact that the sources are currently not cited is not equivalent to an argument against notability; on the contrary: the fact that it is asserted that they exist, and normal websearches show numerous hits for docs behind paywalls, indicates that it is notable, and that we hope somebody can provide the references from a stack of newspapers in their mom's basement or whatever. This will never happen if the articles are deleted. JERRY talk contribs 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as default, and nominator merge-tag or list separately... this cluster nom of schools is confusing as a combined nomination, and some clearly are notable. Concensus will be impossible with everyone differently saying delete these, merge those, keep these... JERRY talk contribs 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. While some of these should be ultimately be merged, none of them need to be deleted and the merge discussions can take place separately on the respective article talk pages. RFerreira (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for
    talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. GlassCobra 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shell

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

This article was nominated for deletion a little over two years ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell. I believe we interpret notability different nowadays, which is why I'm nominating it again.

The reason I think this should be deleted is the lack of reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability, or the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (people). See basic criteria section; the article provides absolutely no independent coverage to satisfy this. Of the three references cited, 1 and 2 are to personal websites. Not considered independent. 3 is to a Wikimedia PDF, which isn't independent either. Now, consider the two external links. First is the same personal website, not independent. The second is a four-sentence Wikimedia Foundation bio, which is, yes, not independent coverage either. I've searched for more sources, but I have not been able to find a single reliable, independent source which devotes more than two sentences of coverage to Shell. Not a single one. Two sentences - or even three or four - is most likely not significant coverage by anyone's standards. Uncle G makes a very good point in the prior afd, which I suggest be read.

Regarding the arguments at the old afd: none of them brought up independent coverage of any sort. Reading some of the arguments for keeping, I'm rather surprised the closing admin considered them at all reasonable. "keep I just voted to keep some article on a website that sells wristbands for fans of Crystal Palace, so I pretty much have to be an inclusionist for the next week or so, so yes, keep. Youngamerican 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" I suppose he might have been attempting humor. Otherwise, enough said.

"Weakest keep ever. Bomis doesn't fit my "deserves an article on every CEO ever" criteria, and Wikipedia, in terms of the prominence of it, doesn't deserve an article on every board member ever in my eyes. And yet, we are Wikipedia. Obviously. And, honestly, I'm voting to keep because Mr. Shell is so notable in a Wikipedia context that it will help the project to have an article on him around. Did that make a lick of sense? Lord Bob 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" I guess this must not have been the prevalent opinion in 2005, but I'm sure that by 2008 no one considers being connected to the Wikimedia Foundation a reason to keep articles even when they would otherwise be deleted.

"CEOs are notable, and board members of the 45th most popular web site further increases notability. Unfocused 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" This is what I mean when I said we judge notability differently - in October 2005, this was considered good enough. Now, however, actual sources are required to establish notability. Being a CEO of a company with an article does not confer automatic notability, nor does being a former board member of Wikipedia. If you think he's notable, please show some significant (more than two sentences) independent coverage. Otherwise, I suggest deletion. Picaroon (t) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also note that the "whatlinkshere" results come from his inclusion on {{
      Wikipediahistory}}, not many actual references in other articles. Picaroon (t) 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--

talk) 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Coleman Leuthy

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

Not sure if the article claims he is notable as a teacher, mycologist or mountaineer, but none of them passes

WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Asorson

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

Non-notable biography. Jfire (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. PeaceNT (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door

List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of locations in TV show, mostly original research or non-notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages as unnecessary pageforks of the above article:

Gallagher Elementary School (Codename: Kids Next Door) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kids Next Door Arctic Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
treelo talk 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sector V Headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tavix (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Rigadoun (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia Watch

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

Non-notable website, fails

WP:WEB. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Sources have been found for this article now ([1],[2]). I withdraw this nomination. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larson's paper is only one non-trivial mention. Hari's personal website is not a RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources you mentioned are trivial coverage. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hari article was originally published in
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Xian

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

This person was mentioned once in history, in the discussion regarding several characters who themselves were not of particular historical importance. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Repente

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

Yet another

crystalline CD. No sources. Google search turns up nothing. Track listing appears to be completely fictitious. Kww (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as unverified unless CD can be confirmed with sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the notability guidelines for albums, and for general articles. The article states that the album has a release date of October 2008 and to quote the relevant guideline, unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources. No sources are provided or appear available for the album or any of the singles (3 out of 4 of which also have future release dates). Notability for an album is generally preceded by notability for the performer, but Ms Dias fails all of the notability guidelines - not the subject of independent non-trivial coverage, no charted hits on a national level, no gold-certified records, no international tours, has not released two (or even one) album, is not uniquely representative of a musical style, no major awards and has not been a member of any previous notable band. All we have left is an unreleased album by a non-notable singer, with a speculative track list and no sources of any kind. Euryalus (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable; completely fails
    WP:N guidelines. --BelovedFreak 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per everyone; I'm sick of articles like this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Wikipedia:Notability --ChetblongTalkSign 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete as non-notable. Appropriate redirects may be created if deemed helpful. Pastordavid (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haymaker Sandwich

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

Non-notable

Troy, NY. All information on sandwich is already found in article on Bill Craver. Redfarmer (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boryeong Mud Festival

Boryeong Mud Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Might not be notable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I'm really on the fence here because, on one hand, it seems to violate WP:ADVERT. The article is horribly written, not wiki-fied, and includes an advert at the bottom. I couldn't even figure out where the festival was held based on the article but had to go to the festival page to find out it's in South Korea. On the other hand, it does seem to pass notability based on G-hits and it seems like something is worth salvaging based on that. Requires extreme cleanup though. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but Cleanup. Agreed with Redfarmer, this does seem to violate WP:ADVERT. The article needs to be fixed up significantly (i.e. wikified), but it does seem to be notable enough to be an article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After cleaning up the article a little myself, deleting the phone number, and talking to the user on his talk page, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. The user provided this link to a Time magazine article about the festival if there is still any doubt as to its notability. -- Redfarmer (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a festival that attracts 1.5 million visitors is clearly notable, and User:Redfarmer has cleaned up the tone of the article. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plainly notable as a festival. However, I have removed further chunks that are not directly related to the festival. BlueValour (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom withdrawn, clearly notable now, and nice referencing work!--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Change, Goodbye Gravity

Welcome Change, Goodbye Gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable

non-notable band that is also currently up for deletion (see relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Morning Of) on non-notable record label whose article was previously speedily deleted. I think the key word here is: non-notable. Redfarmer (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL

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

Delete -

talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • "Popular" is not the standard for inclusion. And to again reference
    talk) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you, Mister Snarky, I do keep track of the articles regardless of whether I'm snarkily advised to or not. I notice that most of the sourcing that's been added is for such things as who said "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV," which is certainly important to source but has very little to do with the actual subject of the article. My point still stands, that even if the acronym is insanely popular, popularity does not equal notability and how popular it is has absolutely no relevance as to whether the article should be kept. You've been doing these long enough, you really ought to know better than to try to pass off that kind of rotten argument.
    talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Md5deep

:Md5deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Non-notable computer forensics tool --- no references in the article, no news hits ever, 2 book hits (virtually every security tool can wind up in someone's book). There are several scholar hits for the tool, but they are overwhelmingly attributed to the author of the tool and published in "forensics" journals, which are at the fringe of academic security research --- moreover, most of the journal hits simply list the tool alongside such basic tools as "md5sum". This article has been edited repeatedly by the author of the tool.

Withdrawn by nominator --- tqbf 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted and the content demoted to a more general article on crypto filesystem forensics. --- tqbf 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Nothing to merge (basic info is already there), nothing verifiable to keep, and typo makes it an unnecessary redirect as well.

Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nelson, (Life On Mars)

Nelson, (Life On Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable fictional character. Harland1 (t/c) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to a deletion instead of a redirect, especially since the comma makes this unlikely as a search term.
    talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Salee' Amina Mohammed

Dr. Salee' Amina Mohammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not have any

verifiability. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since September 2007 with no improvement. A google search turns up some of her postings on blogs but no reliable sources. A news search finds one mention in an article which looks to be just getting a quote from her, but the article is behind a pay wall. The other news result is a press release. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by user:Fugitive Recovery Agent but declined as the article does assert notability but just has no sources to back it up. Whpq (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

This is a duplicate of the Emre Güngör (1984), The dutch version does not exsist and need deleting.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, coverage found in reliable sources during AFD appears to establish notability meeting

WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Morning Of

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

Makes a couple of claims, but none are enough to satisfy

WP:MUSIC. SmartPunk and PureVolume are not major record charts, so those claims certainly don't qualify under criterion #2. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete articles on company and its alleged founder, with no prejudice against creation of proper article about the company. DS (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vast banket

This is a very strange article. There is a company in the Netherlands called Vast Banket, but it's a small family company, barely notable. The only coverage they have had are press releases, such as this one. The "professor Banket" in the article appears to be a hoax. Banket is the Dutch word for

advertising, or any combination of the above. AecisBrievenbus 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • While the company exists, the article does not deal with that company but with a fictititious prof Banket.
  • Keep but clean up references This article needs is references properly integrated.racingstu 16:57, 4 January 2008(UTC)
  • The current references do not support any of the text of the article (I checked them, Dutch is my native language). Arnoutf (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Saldhana

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

Non-notable saxophonist who has reached the dizzy heights of playing in a hotel lounge bar. Google search for "Dominic Saldhana" -wikipedia [9] produces 19 distinct hits, most of which do no more than give his name and none assert any notability. Article reads like a combination advert/CV. Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International football results

International football results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "

Jay 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy delete per

Criteria A7, non-notable group. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The National Socialist Party of Great Britain

The National Socialist Party of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable far-right party. Previously deleted at it's

reliable sources. Prod removed by author. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - I believe that the party is notable, due to the small spectrum of far right parties in the UK increasing it's prominence, rather than on comparison to all UK political parties, and that one so extreme as this deserves mention due to that. Not only that, but this article was kept up for a good few weeks before with spelling errors, irrelevant information that can be found elsewhere, and a huge bias - and yet now that all those have been changed, after it was deleted for "blatant advertising", it is up for deletion again, while notability was not taken as reason before. I've repaired all the issues previous creators of the page have made, as anyone who's page is being deleted should but now it's up for deletion again. I think this page should be kept.

Bellringer1 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But would a political party not registered as a party instead be a political pressure group? Which would surely make this a non-notable organisation, due to the lack of reliable sources about it? Whitstable (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. If it calls itself a party it's a party; registration has nothing to do with it. And what makes you think that political pressure groups are non-notable, with or without sources? Emeraude (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this particular case, it is a non-notable something - not that pressure groups are all non-notable, which is clearly not the case! Anyway, let's forget about it, not worth delaying this AFD over! Whitstable (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, the party exists. The recruiting campaign will no doubt get them reported on the news as something like "An alarming increase in racism" or "Virulent fascists roam the streets" or something similar. The party really goes public with recruiting this year, so you may hear more about it as time progresses. All of the information on the article is true, I assure you.

Bellringer1 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with no prejudice against re-creation if they do get into the news - we'll then have some suitable reliable sources that can be quoted. Until then, though, they don't merit an article. Tevildo (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete they get 5 ghits 3 of which are wikipedia, completely non-notable. RMHED (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And one of the two ghits that isn't a Wiki page is using the name as a disparaging term for the UK Labour Party. Whitstable (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Loved the website-- 12 anonymous members, no address except the e-mail kind, no events scheduled--- any asshole with a computer can voice an opinion on the internet. I just did. Mandsford (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, move on.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Barton (journalist)

Peter Barton (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable journalist for a barely notable magazine, who has written two non-notable books. No coverage in

autobiography. AecisBrievenbus 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. Take advantage of existing categories, create more specific ones as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings in Lower Manhattan

List of buildings in Lower Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete list of some buildings in a notable street cannot become encyclopedic article. This info, if needed and if there are some notable building here, con be mentioned in the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in agreement with nom. Any notable buildings with valid links can be sub-sectioned in the main article. I might have weak kept if there had been more valid linked articles with brief info on each, but judging by its current state and what it currently provides, it's a delete for me. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form, this is listcruft. Per above, notable buildings for Wall Street and other LM streets can be sub-sectioned on their main articles, if the street itself is notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Merge, or Userfy - this info should be preserved in some way. It was originally split out from the Wall Street article, so there might be some resistance to having it put back there. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, obvious copyright violation of [10]. An article discussing this top 100 and its reception and importance may be possible: an article mostly existing of a reproduction of the list is definitely not fair use.

Fram (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Time magazine top 100

Time magazine top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Someone has expressed concern this is a copyright violation. I think it probably qualifies as fair use, but I thought the community should have a look at it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Keep. There're no legitimate copyright problems here, so long as the list in its current form hasn't been ripped exactly from a Time publication. If we considered such things copyright breaches, we wouldn't be able to reference anything relating to magazines and their contents. Alloranleon (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Time magazine top 100 movies. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, this is assuming it is not a copyvio. If it is a copyvio, then the article can be
      speedied. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Y'all might be interested in this: [11]. 3 copyvio deletions. Might Time be protecting their rights to this list? Someone might want to message one of the deleting admins. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE above Right, good idea. Just need to find somebody with the balls to do so... Assuming you meant they may have a conflict of interest. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How's this: [[12]] for an alternative source? Alloranleon (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because somebody else violates copyright doesn't mean Wikipedia can. Corvus cornixtalk 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No prose, sources, bad link, no claims of notability (for the list). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge, if it isn't indeed a copyright violation, if it is Speedy Delete. Seems somewhat suitable to be an article, but would be nice if it could somehow be merged with
    Films considered the greatest ever. Hello32020 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per copyright violation. If someone can proove that is isn't, I'll change my vote. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, when it comes to copyvios, the onus of proof is on the nominator. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not hardly. There are standards on Wikipedia. Intellectual property is clearly copyrighted. Corvus cornixtalk 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is, if we tag something as copyvio, we have to determine, copyvio of what, specifically. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times do we have to go through this, indeed. The list here is a very small portion of the material they published on this. --it's valid as fair use of an excerpt, and its valid as reporting. DGG (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tuberculosis victims

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

Delete This topic do not deserve for a encyclopedic article. This article documents the name of some notable people who died from

List of deaths by accidental drug overdose etc. because the cause of death is a serious issue in today's medical science and society. But tuberculosis or malaria etc. numerous diseases are not. Hence I am nominating this unencyclopedic article for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. Note also that the page was started at
    List of famous tuberculosis victims and has been moved here in the interim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: Sorry, there's no effective vaccine for malaria yet. The parasite's complex life cycle makes it hard to target.--Lenticel (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the link I provided in response to Alloranleon. The naming conventions quite clearly state that the names of articles, lists, templates, categories etc. should not contain words like "notable", "famous", etcetera. Remove those words from his proposal, and you end up with its current title. AecisBrievenbus 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Firstly,
    AIDS, Anorexia nervosa etc." Are you serious? Do you know anything about the history of this disease or, indeed, its current drug resistant resurgence? That's the single silliest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. Doesn't the long list of notable people who've died of it tell you that it's been a major cause of death? The Anorexia list, which you seem quite happy with, has all of seven names on it. Nick mallory (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've just noticed the claim that Malaria isn't an important disease either. It would be hard to think of two diseases which have wreaked more effect on humanity throughout recorded history. I seriously urge the nominator to read up about these subjects, rather than seek to delete information about them. Nick mallory (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say we have consensus here. Anyone for fast-tracking the closing of this proposal? Alloranleon (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick mallory...nothing more to say. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a major killer throughout human history. It is only because of medical advances in the last 150 years that it has been overtaken by diseases like cancer, which tend to kill later in life. The treatment up until almost WWII was
    sanitorium care which greatly affected the lifestyle of the afflicted, including many artists for whom this became a defining event. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is a good argument against the nomination rationale, when he said "Firstly, tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS, Anorexia nervosa etc." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of atrocities

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

There is no acceptable definition of atrocity which will not allow a meaningful list of atrocities to be built. This list will have all the problems and non neutral points of view that the list of massacres has which is in a constant state of POV edit warring. (see Talk:List of massacres and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres)

The Atrocity article says "In general use, an atrocity or massacre designates a politically or ethnically motivated killing of civilians. In international law, more precise terms are war crime and crime against humanity". If the list is only to be constructed from definition of international law then they should be in lists of war crimes and crimes against humanity where there is a strict legal definition. Not a vague list generated from politically or ethnically motivated points of view.

Making the list a "list of alleged atrocities" would be an even worse idea as anyone can allege that anything is an atrocity. --

talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There is already a list of genocides called
talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.

Fram (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Serena Dalrymple

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

Non notable child actress, article appears to have been written by her friends. There does seem to be a web-presence, but no decent,

reliable sources as far as I can see. Appearances appear to be minor. Prod was removed by the author. Both the author and an anon have blanked the page at different times. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed my opinion. See below. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, as I see it, is that Philippine institutions (such as award-giving bodies) don't keep very good websites. For instance, the Awit Awards website doesn't keep a list of past winners extending to way back before the Internet hit the mainstream. There are, in fact, some institutions that do not have a website. So in the end, we'll be forced to rely to old-school newspapers from library archives. But, yes, Serena did win some awards, I remember hearing of it (just that, I can't remember which one for which movie and when). --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's alright to cite old newspapers- if you have access to those archives, then citing the papers in this article (and other, similar articles) would be a fantastic help. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable child actress. --Howard the Duck 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable actress in the Philippines (actually more notable when she was a child actress). She used to be the leading star in about a dozen films, and very notable Philippine comedians were on the supporting cast of these movies (e.g. Dolphy, Babalu, Redford White, Carding of the Reycards duo). I even saw some of her movies myself when I was younger =P All those movies which are (still) red links? She's the leading star in allthose movies, and at the time she earned a huge sum that she was able to support her family, including her two other sisters. She keeps a lesser profile these days, which started after the death of her mother, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable former child actress, but we need to find valid sources (but they are in libraries by now). Starczamora (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable child actress. See her IMDB profile. Has starred in a lot of movies, and has won awards in the Philippine version of the Oscars. --seav (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of this discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) --Strothra (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with Wall Street

List of people associated with Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merge in Wall Street: In wikipedia there is already an article Wall Street. This info can easily go there. Such trivial info canonot deserve for a separate article. As such numerous articles can be created like List of people associated with Tajmahal, List of people associated with New York etc. etc. This info can easily go in the section of the Wall Street article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect with a suggestion to merge the content in the history to

editorially
.

I have protected the redirect per

deletion review to have the draft evaluated by a consensus to see if it can be reinstated in place of the redirect. Similarily, if you disagree with this close, feel free to ask for a review also. Daniel 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Truth & Consequences

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

Fails

WP:VERIFY
, (nbc is not a reliable source in this case, in the wikipedia sense of the word), I can't find any third party sources to verify the lengthy plot summary that fills 90% of the page.

I would also like to point out the apparent lack of self-discipline of the
Heroes wikiproject. In this diff you can see they acknowledge the need to merge the individual articles into one list, and set it as one of their tasks. This was 2 months and 3 weeks ago. Not only have they not got round to starting the process as far as I can see, but they also created a whole load more articles on individual episodes, such as this one created by User:Edokter
, who is a member of the heroes wikiproject.
Furthermore they keep adding random non-free screenshots of random parts of the episode into the infoboxes. How can these images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic when they show only about 0.1% of the episode ?
Please note that
WP:Episode
seems to be highly disputed now, especially by the users writing these articles, so as a courtesy to them I will not base this nomination on that guideline. Please consider this article as any other that has no sources, and appears to be original research based on simply watching the series. The heroes TV series is notable, each episode in itself is not, though the occasional ones may be.
Thank you Uncle G, I believe you are quite right, policy supersedes guidelines, also Sceptre the
WP:EPISODE says Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research, this is exactly why I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it is unverifiable and original research, please refer to the first 3 words of the nomination. This put aside I would like to base the AfD on policy only as the episode guideline seems to be disputed at the moment. This having been said, if anyone of you would like to merge the article, please feel free to do so within the 7 day AfD period and I will be more than happy to remove the nomination. However saying merge and then more than 2 months later still not having done it, as I showed above is not a solution. Jackaranga (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Except watching a program and describing the plot, as long as you don't put an interpretation on it, is not original research. The episode itself is the reference. By your definition of original research everything is original research. By that definition finding a reference and putting it in your own words is OR, just locating a reference would be OR, which is isn't. The information for a TV episode is easily verifiable from watching an episode, this is no different to reading it in a book or reading it on a news website and does not constitute original research. Even the Wikipedia article defines OR as "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." The data on the episode page is a summary and synthesis of a previous publication [the original broadcast]. Ben W Bell talk 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This assumes that there are additional cites to reliable sources. None have as yet been forthcoming in the course of this discussion. What sources do you put forward in support of your opinion?
    talk) 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was keep. John254 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with Bletchley Park

List of people associated with Bletchley Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just added the title above to separate this AfD from the one above it. This is not my nomination, I have nothing to do with this article, please read how to do an AfD before doing this again, whoever nominated this article, it makes the AfD page incomprehensible when the comments below are under a heading about a TV series. Jackaranga (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Bletchley Park: In wikipedia there is already an article Bletchley Park. This info can easily go there. Such trivial info canonot deserve for a separate article. As such numerous articles can be created like List of people associated with Tajmahal, List of people associated with New York etc. etc. This info can easily go in the "In popular culture" section of the Bletchley Park article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "in popular culture", these are people who worked on an historically important project. If that isn't encyclopedic, I'll eat my hat. "Associated with" does not necessarily open the door to other miscellaneous articles, if that's what you're concerned with. There's no way this could be recast as "List of people from Bletchley Park, for instance, even if they lived there temporarily. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is useful reference information. 1) I'm confused by the suggestion to put this in a "in popular culture" section. In what sense is this information related to popular culture? 2) This information cannot "easily" go into Bletchley Park -- indeed, I split this list out of that article in January 2006 because it was becoming too large to fit there. 3) I would argue that a list is useful in addition to having a category because it can be annotated with extra information. — Matt Crypto 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's unwieldy to try to contain this information in
    Bletchly Park. I disagree with the "in popular culture" assessment. Many of the people listed are notable both for being involved with the project at Bletchly Park and for subsequent work elsewhere. There exists two categories: Category:People associated with Bletchley Park and Category:Bletchley Park; if it is deemed necessary to "deal" with this article, I'd suggest using the already-existing mechanisms to associate people with the project (which would simply mean adding Category:People associated with Bletchley Park to the main Bletchley Park article). Yngvarr 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This list contains useful and interesting information, on an important subject. Now, in general I like categories more than lists (I find them more useful for navigating, and for all sorts of other reasons), so I am intrigued by Malinaccier's proposal: it seems like something very much worth pondering. Is there something peculiar about this list that would make it better suited as a list per se, instead of a category? Turgidson (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the article more carefully (and trying my hand at some small edits), I noted something specific about this list —something that may set it apart from lists that could be better turned into categories: it appears to want to (briefly) indicate the future careers of the Bletchly Park code-breakers (and some of those careers, such as that of J. H. C. Whitehead, were truly outstanding). Is this the intent? I'm still not quite sure, since this is not done uniformly, and not explained—but perhaps this aspect could be developed, so as to fully support keeping this article as a list? Turgidson (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was the original intent. Having a category is good, and I believe we do already, but I don't think it's sufficient, largely because you can annotate a list with information -- such as what they the people did at Bletchley, and whether (as was very often the case) they did something else notable in their lives. I've always understood the role of lists and categories to be complementary on Wikipedia; you don't necessarily have to have just one or the other, but both can be useful. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, the category does exist: Category:People associated with Bletchley Park — I've seen it before, for sure, but memory sometimes fades, thanks for the reminder. And, yes, I'm with you for having both categories and lists (each one has i's strengths, and perhaps, sometimes, its weaknesses), though I still prefer categories when everything else is equal, as in the case of the (alas!) defunct Erdős number categories. In this case, though, given the real potential for expanding the list with info about subsequent careers of the Bletchley Park people (in a multi-column table, yes, great idea!), I am now convinced this subject merits both a category and a list (something I would not say for every category or list, only for select few). Turgidson (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of later-famed people associated with the project is long and encyclopedic. It would be good to source both the major positions held and what they are later known for (maybe a three-column table). --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A table's not a bad idea at all; it might be easier to peruse than a bullet point list. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is so long it would be cumbersome to put it into another article, and the fact that so many very notable people were associated with Bletchley Park is in itself notable. This information is certainly not "trivial". (And the suggestion that this is "popular culture" material makes me wonder if the person who suggested that has any idea what this is about.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject; objective criterion for inclusion; not trivia or "popular culture"; list is long enough to require its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons already given by others, and suggest that nominator should read
    talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Bletchley Park was a seminal event in the history of 20th century technology, at the level of the Manhattan Project, (q.v. Category:Manhattan Project people). This list is exceptionally valuable resource.--agr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study

List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merge with Institute for Advanced Study: In wikipedia there is already an article titled Institute for Advanced Study. A list on the faculty members do not deserve for a separate article. This info can easily go into Institute for Advanced Study article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Ignition (album). D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Magic

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

Non notable album track with no useful information. Never released as a single. Previous Prod deleted, finally got around to AfD Nouse4aname (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, rubbish explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, should have suggested that option too, but I wanted the decision to be saved somewhere incase of future edits that revert it back to a pointless stub! Oh, and what do you mean crap? "Why Don't You Get a Job" was awesome.....Nouse4aname (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rip-off of The Beatles' Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. I just don't like their later music. But Wikipedia is not a forum. The current consensus seems to be that redirecting non-notable songs to the appropriate album is the most acceptable thing to do - better than deletion in some ways, yet it other ways it could prove problematic considering the number of album track names that exist - if redirects existed for every track on every notable album, people may find that they end up on a page when they were actually looking for something else.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a legitimate concern, but in this particular case, anyway, I don't think there's any overlap for the phrase "Dirty magic", and any future overlaps can be worked out when they happen TheBilly (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to album. No reliable sources at present and lack of notability. Seraphim Whipp 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I own this album on a worn-out cassette tape and like this particular song as well as all the others, but it's not one of their more important ones. Per WP:MUSIC, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." TheBilly (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to

Metal Slug (series). Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Allen O'Neil

Allen O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 17:24, 26 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, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fantasy universe figure with no real world notability Whitstable (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Brewcrewer, no need for a separate article. Someone another (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I'm going out on a limb here and being

bold. There us no concrete assertion of notability (at least nothing that is verifiable, the number of Ghits is low and there is a question over whether the article was self written. Mallanox 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Gman Blues

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

Nickname of non-notable musician Gary Wesselhoff, who obviously has no article of his own. There are some Ghits of Wesselhoff as a writer, but nothing substantial as a performer. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Redirect – Sorry to disagree, I believe he has established notability based on these hits in Google as shown here, [21] In particular this article; [22]. However, the Wikipedia article should be redirected to Gary Wesselhoff and the article posted there. In addition, it does need a complete rewrite and should be tagged as such. Happy New Year Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look and realized this is his staff writer biography. That defnitely knocks this out of the nobility field for me. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one was a tough one for me. One the one hand, Shoesss is right that there are eleven pages of Google hits for the mans name. On the other hand, on looking at some of the hits I found two trends: 1) Many of the hits are not for him at all but for an author of the same name. 2) Many were links to Myspace-ish networking sites for musicians. 3) Of those which were actually articles on the musician, most that I looked at were written by the musician himself. I was not able to find an independent article about the musician. In addition, the username which created the article only made one edit in October, to create the article in question, which leads me to speculate this may have been the musician once again self-promoting himself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Keep - Even with Redfarmer (talk) objections. The “Chicago Music Guild” is a verifiable and reliable source. Do we penalize the individual because he is on staff there? I assume, and as far as I know the protocol for every newspaper is that a writer submits his piece to the associate editor for that section who must approve or disapprove. The piece is than passed to the editor of the section for the same decision. At that point it is typically passed to an independent editor for a thumbs up or down. Than finally published. I see no collusion or cabal here. By the way Happy New Year All.Shoessss |  Chat  14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's "Chicago Music Guide," not "Chicago Music Guild." The site seems to be a local Chicago Web Zine which features a few articles on music but mostly reviews of musical acts which have played in Chicago. Their mission statement seems to imply they don't discriminate between notability or not, as their mission is to help "all musicians," and, indeed, the only act I see they review which has any national/international notability is Avenged Sevenfold, who apparently played a show in Chicago recently. I really fail to see how an staff writer's bio on a local web zine, coupled with self-written articles strewn across the net, establishes the person's notability as a musican. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to press the issue a little further, his writer bio, besides saying he's a musicain, also says he's been a "Recording Engineer, Network Analyst, and Lead Sound and Stage Carpenter." Do you think a writer's bio on a local web zine would establish his notability in any of those fields? If not, why do you think it establishes his notability as a musician? -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - LOL, I admit I am an incluetionist! Yes a made up word. I always question any individual editors imperious opinion that an article should be deleted. My feelings have always been, “ when in doubt KEEP. Shoessss |  Chat  15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think there're any doubts here. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 (and tagged as such) - authoring a web zine and signing up for networking sites in between fits of self-promotion does not make a musician notable. The article makes utterly no claim of notability, and could even be tagged under somewhat liberal interpretation of G11 (blatant advertising, in this case, a self-promoting vanity bio). The closest the article comes to a statement of notability is the line, "So far gman hasn’t been on the grand stages of rock, but it is a mark he is moving to." Maybe once he moves to those grand stages, an article will be justified. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Most of the keep arguments actually have good reasoning, while most of Delete arguments seem to be not offering arguments for it, as

sockpuppetry here to try and get the article deleted. Therefore, after looking at the debate (and removing possible sockpuppet reasons) its almost certainly keep. The renaming issues can be further discussed on the article talkapge. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs

Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This is a personal essay on Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs. It starts with a POV title and goes downhill from there. I tried redirecting it, but the creator and sole editor reverted me with a charming edit summary. As far as I can tell this essay is partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references (not since the opening chapters of A History of the English Speaking Peoples have I seen quite so many references to quite so few sources) and is in sundry ways unacceptable, violating

WP:NPOV from the outset. Since the creator won't allow it to be quietly redirected, here it is for the community's consideration. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep
This is really ridiculous.
The article was created because there was lack of space in the Zionism article. I proposed it in the talk section [23]. Below that, on the same talk page Ceedjee says 'I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful.' and Telaviv1 says 'It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people.'.
I suspect JzG has only taken a superficial glance at the article. He refused to substantiate his allegations: 'partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references' on the talk page of the article and went directly to a nomination for deletion. Maybe he doesn't like the thruths stated in the article and thinks there are many sources that would claim something different. I'm quite sure the article uses sources from both sides and gives their bearing in a neutral way. Improvement is of course always possible, certainly in such a new article, and if JzG is interested I'd be happy to cooperate with him to improve the article.
The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources (which are both in it). Also, to call 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs' in itself pov would be an admittance of a personal pov of an editor that these attitudes were immoral, while they might just as well be moral. I grant that the article might lend itself for pov-edits from one side, but (1) that is true for many articles on wikipedia, e.g. the
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
article gives a lot of attention to his Nazi-ties, and (2) the article is already quite long (readable text of the article is now 44 kB), so e.g. 'Palestinian Arab attitudes toward Zionism' can better be treated in a separate article (which we could link to directly below the title of this article).
I propose we first discuss whether there is substance to JzG's allegations on the talk page of the article before taking any decisions. I already started the discussion, and I hope JzG will join it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - This proposal of deletion is a bad idea. I wrote on the talk page that I considered (too) there was some pov-fork and maybe a little PoV issues in the article BUT the way to solve this is certainly not first in deleting whole JaapBoBo's work and just after in starting this process of deletion... Currently (but it should be discussed) I think the best title for an article on the topic would be Zionists and Arabs in Mandate Palestine referring to 2 books used in the bibliography of the article (Flapan, Simha, 1979, Zionism and the Palestinians - Gorny, Yosef, 1987, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948) and also to Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, whose subtitle is Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Ceedjee (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the whole problem, for me. The term "Zionists" is pejorative, and rehashing the arguments on one side of the debate made by a handful of books is not what Wikipedia is for. Per
WP:UNDUE, we shold cover such arguments in an article that covers both sides of the dispute. This has served us well in the past and has gained critical acclaim for our handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand what you mean when you write that "the term Zionists is pejorative" but this is only true today because it is a way to delegitimate Israel. Historically and for the period covered by the article, it is not. Majority of Jews in Palestine were Zionists (and proud to be).
For the remaining, I think we have the same point of view except I deplore the procedure. Ceedjee (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that JzG/Guy has dropped most of his allegations, and has reduced his criticism to the criticism of Ceedjee. As Ceedjee points out 'Zionists' is the usual way to refer to Zionists before 1948. So I think there's no problem with the title in itself. Apparently there is only a problem with the subject covered by the title, which is percieved as one-sided. Equivalently creationists could have a problem with the article on 'evolution', because they percieve that as one-sided. Ceedjee would like to extend the subject to include Palestinian attitudes toward the Zionists and the British. In view of the size of the article (already 44 kB readable text ) I'd propose to deal with that in a separate article, and to prominantly link the articles. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't read like something that appears in an encyclopedia. It seems to be a collection of material from various sources
    forking going on. Shot info (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In my view the article as it is now is already quite NPOV. The 'Transfer idea' section is from
causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It needs copy-editing, but many editors contributed to it in the course of about half a year. I consider it NPOV. The sections in historical order 'During ...' are taken from Zionism
, although I added some texts that were not included there because of space-considerations. This part is also fairly NPOV. The first three sections were added in the last three days. I don't think they are very pov, but improvement by other editors is welcome. This is of course normal in an article that is only four days old.
WP:syn says: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I could mention that it reads like it is
copied from the sources, but there is enough original research and synthesis in the article (on top of clear ownership problems) as well as it reads like a personal essay...rather than an encyclopedic article. You are more than welcome to have this hosted on your own personal website, but unfortunately POVFORKs don't belong in Wikipedia. Sorry, comments from the editor with the ownership problem isn't enough to sway my intention to recommend this article for deletion. Shot info (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My comment: Actually the title is not one-sided, as it is a neutral title for the subject covered. I admit the subject covered is one-sided. However there are many books covering this 'one-sided' subject. In Gorny's work only the Zionist attitudes are discussed. The same in Finkelstein's work. Flapan gives about 10 percent space to discuss the Arabs, but he also discusses mainly the attitudes of the Zionists. Teveth discusses only Ben-Gurion's attitude. Note that Gorny and Teveth are pro-Israeli historians. Have they been accused of onesidedness? No, because in this context onesidedness has nothing to do with NPOV.
Why should Wikipedia adopt a different approach than these respected historians? --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see... I think. Actually, as I am unfamiliar with literature on the subject, I will have to rely on your word here in terms of the attitudes of the historians you mention, as well as how respected they are. Now, as there are two sides to every story, do you think it wouldn't be prudent to include the opposite view in the article, so as to balance it? Is there literature by/of/on Palestinian Arabs and their attitude towards the Israelis? Preferably by historians of equal stature? --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should distinguish between the opposite view (on Zionist attitudes) and the opposite subject (Palestinian Arab attitudes). Including the opposite view is necesarry for balance and NPOV (as it is now views from both sides are already included). Including the opposite subject has nothing to do with NPOV, and it would make the article very large. Excluding the opposite subject is certainly not POV-forking as that would require exclusion of an opposite view. The three books and the chapter by Finkelstein I mentioned take this approach.
E.g. in the article you can read that the Zionist movement had a policy of excluding Arab workers and that therefore few Arabs worked in the Jewish sector of the economy. Quite some reasons are given for this policy. Personally I think that the absorption capacity for immigration was a quite important reason, and fears of exploiting cheap indiginous labor (a socialist argument) a much less important reason. Yet the sources attribute about equal importance to these reasons, and that is why I wrote it like that. That's what NPOV is about. Adding that Jews earned 2 or 3 times as much as Arabs, and therefore few Jews worked in the Arab sector has no effect on the neutrality of the former. It introduces however a different subject. The problem I have with that is article size.
There is literature on the opposite subject of course, e.g. by R. Khalidi. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to really bite into the article to continue this discussion, but we're both keep !voters anyway. Give me some time. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that historians do not refer to the Arab attitude towards Zionism and this would be an opposite subject ! It is even a main point on the subject because the Zionist attitude toward them was soon dictated by the Arab reaction and attitude toward them.
1921 Jaffa riots and 1929 Hebron massacre
, which are "Arabs attitudes toward Zionists" that deepely influenced Zionists attitude toward Arabs. And they are many other things.
But this is also explained in Morris, Righteous Victims or in Laqueur, The Unseen Question chapter of his History of Zionism (even if they deal less with the subject).
More, when we have 3 historians who chose precise (neutral) titles to their work, we should chose the same :
  • Flapan - Zionism and the Palestinians
  • Gorny - Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948
  • Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate.
Particulary when 2 first are the one the most used references in the articles !
Ceedjee (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Zionist attitudes were affected by events and circumstances. This is also clear in the books I refer to. However despite that they limit themselves to the Zionist attitude. I don't think the Zionist attitudes were 'deeply influenced' by these events (the basic attitude was the same before and after the riots, the invocation of the 'historical right', and the 'Jewish labour' policy was not changed), but if they were then these events can be mentioned as events that deeply influenced the attitudes. In fact Flapan and Gorny mention them and their effect, which was mainly that the Zionists realised that there was forceful opposition to them (and more to be reckoned with in the future), and that the British restricted immigration, which in turn was disliked by the Zionists. These facts can be mentioned, but if they are discussed completely it is clear that also British attitudes should be mentioned and discussed. That would make the article even bigger. Why should we do this if it is completely unneccesarry for NPOV? There is nothing in
WP:NPOV
that says inclusion of the opposite subject is necesarry?
Flapan's and Gorny's titles are about Zionism in relation to the Palestinian Arabs. Their chief subject is Zionist attitudes and not Arab attitudes. By the way their titles are not neutral: for the pre-1948 era 'Palestinians' is not a word easily used by pro-Isreaeli writers, and 'Arabs' is not a word easily used by pro-Palestinian writers. That's why I chose the more neutral 'Palestinian Arabs'. I chose 'Zionist attitudes toward ...' to limit the article to that, and if the title is changed to 'Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs' it will not be limited to that. In that respect writers of books have much more freedom in choosing their title, while at the same time limiting their subject. Segev, along with many others, did not limit himself to this subject. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Segev just added the British in the picture but he puts them in the context of the Arab and Jews relationships.
The best title would be Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine
What precisely in
WP:NPOV
prevents the current title ? Nothing. This policy doesn't deal article titles but -as you wrote- the subject is one-sided, which is never very good.
In history, a fair picture of events or thoughts or attitudes can only be achieved with the appropriate context and the context of the Zionists attitude was the Arab attitude and vice versa.
Finally if we create Zionist attitude toward Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs attitude toward Zionists we create some pov-fork's because articles will deal with the same material. Ceedjee (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue of the length but I think that
Considering that most editors favor a very strict interpretation of NPOV (not only inclusion of various views, but also inclusion of opposite subject) I guess I have to give in. So I'll accept extension of the subject.
Ceedjee's title (Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine) seems reasonable, although it doesn't include the pre-1917 era. I'd prefer 'Mandatory Palestine' to 'Mandate Palestine' (30.200 vs. 6.100 hits with google), but otherwise it's okay with me. I do think though that we would have to write in the intro that the article focusses on the attitudes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is a POV fork. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. POV fork. Tavix (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article topic may be POV by nature, but it is an important topic and seems fairly well written. Needs some editing. Rename may be reasonable, but I don't know what to rename it to... Hobit (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. The argument that it was a split from Zionism in unconvincing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the Zionism talk, it does appear to be. Was it a staged thing? I'll assume good faith. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was that a poetic vote for deletion or just pure randomness? :) Alloranleon (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a braek here!
  • I have given arguments as to why the article is not a POV-fork: The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources
  • Although it is not required by
    WP:NPOV
    , which says nothng about including the opposite subject, I agree to change the subject to include the opposite subject (Arab attitudes toward Zionism), and rename it accordingly
  • The content of the article as it is now is hardly pov (according to Ceedjee, a moderately pro-Israeli editor who knows really a lot of the I/P conflict before 1949: maybe a little PoV issues in the article
  • There really was a space-problem in the Zionism article, as TelAviv1 has repeatedly removed my additions with 'article length' as the only argument.
  • Please take a look at the talk page to see how Guy/JzG 'defended' his arguments: partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references etc.
If none of the 'POV-fork' supporters is offering any substantial arguments as to why it is a POV-fork, and if the result of this 'trial' is a 'delete', than I will certainly object! This would be unfair. Certainly on Wikipedia a consensus should be reached by discussion and offering arguments, and not simply, as I fear is happening here, by letting some editors have a superficial glance at the article and base their vote on that. The Guide to Deletion page says: Always explain your reasoning..
Please, if you find it a POV-fork, try to convince me of that. Thx. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually reading it, its an objective balanced article.DGG (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well...
What do you know about this subject to state that it is "balanced" ?
Judging the NPoV of an article requires to know all the pov's it must introduce.
But it is worth keeping the subject, indeed.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger; notable indeed, and enlightening to help understand many of the underlying issued that divide the two sides. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ryan (WTC whistleblower)

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

Given that the sources that the articles cite are his own works, there are major

original research problems, not to mention that it doesn't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment LOL. Asserting that there exists a conspiracy, regardless of who or what it involves does not automatically make a person a 'lunatic', Nick Mallory. Besides, if we applied that line of reasoning to all articles on Wikipedia, we'd have deleted every conspiracy-related article long ago. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against articles on popular conspiracies, so long as they give proper weight to the overwhelming evidence that Neil Armstrong DID land on the moon, the early middle ages really DID exist in history and that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is NOT a shape shifting alien etc. Your quick step of straw man/thin end of the wedge logical fallacies doesn't address the issue of this man's palpable lack of credibility or notability. Nick mallory (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Google News search shows that Ryan got a burst of widespread
    WP:RS coverage in 2006, mostly in debunking the conspiracy theories. Beyond that he's mainly covered by the conspiracy sites. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Nick mallory is right, Wikipedia isn't Myspace, and it seems quite a lot of this is original research. Happy New Year! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 14:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. By the way, someone may want to note that the creator of the article is spamming the discussion page for the article with
    Youtube videos on Mr. Ryan. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per • Gene93k and Redfarmer. Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh delete
    talk 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete A site manager for Environmental Health Laboratories who wrote a letter to NIST and sued his company? Delete.
    talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Notable It has been written very much about this person regarding the
    9/11 Truth Movement, and that was the reason why for example I made a search on this person here on Wikipedia, so I would say he is a notable person. You can for example read about him in Washington Post and American Free Press to just mention a few and is also mentioned in several articles here on Wikipedia. Twilek (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This edit summary doesn't help but give me the impression that the user is inflating the importance of the person (himself?). "Prominent"? And with all due respect to you, Twilek, you've made no edits since March 2007 prior to your comment on this article. That's a little odd, as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What so odd about not being a very active editor on wikipedia? The only reason why I did a comment on this deletion was that I actually made a search on this person, because I read about him in some other articles and have seen him in a movie lately, and when I saw that the article was up for deletion I just wanted to say that he may be notable because people may search for him (or it can be just me, sure. I actually do not know). If that is not enough, sure, go ahead and delete this article, I actually do not care that much, I just wanted to say that people may search for him, nothing more... But I think it is a bit odd that you judge my opinion from how active I am on wikipedia, to this day I have always thoght that the great thing about Wikipeida is that everyone can contribute, not just a chosen crowed of extra active elite editors. I actually often do some minor edits on wikipedia as anonymous user, just because I'm just too lazy to login ;) but this time i actually logged in, because I know that people can be picky if you comment deletions and discussions anonymously, but then I get shit for it anyway ;-) Twilek (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, unsourced, rants, probably originally written by the subject, and quoted in unreliable sources. <sarcasm>Aside from that, a reasonable article.</sarcasm> — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete all as non-notable, and duplications of material already in Chick tract. Redirect all but The Little Princess to Chick tract (in case some cares to do a dab page there). Pastordavid (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Cookie

The Death Cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
The Assignment (Chick Publications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Contract! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The Little Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a Jack Chick strip that appears not to be independently notable. I proposed a merger to Jack Chick but only two people commented, and one of those suggested it was not notable and there was nothing worth merging. I count fewer than 1,000 Google hits provably for this, and few if any of those count as reliable sources. A redirect to Jack Chick would be fine, but as I say I can't really see any justification for having this article on just one of Chick's strips. Add to that the fact that it is written almost entirely from the primary source itself, and I think the argument for removal is pretty strong. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Chick tract (rather than the main Jack Chick article). I agree that the individual tracts don't automatically deserve their own articles. Based on an unscientific sampling of references to individual tracts in the general on-line world, a case might be made for "Big Daddy" or "Doom Town" or "The Sissy", but none of those three have their own article - "The Death Cookie" isn't in that league of notoriety. Tevildo (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Chick tract per Tevildo. I'm not sure any of the Chick tracts would have notority in their own right. I mean, when I see one on a bus or in the restroom, I may pick it up just to giggle a bit but I don't usually remember them by name. I just remember it was a Chick tract. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Looking back, I agree that too much of the article is devoted to plot summary, but there are at least two
    About.com. According to Wikipedia, "The content is written by a network of over 600 journalists, called Guides, who are experts in their particular fields." Since this discussion was published on About.com, a former Top-10 website that is owned by The New York Times, and written by an expert in the field of atheism/agnosticism, it also deserves inclusion. This article could be condensed into a paragraph-length summary in the main article on Chick tracts. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as the only significant author has requested on the article. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainhut

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

Not notable book, appears to be spam, especially considering the name of the creator. Dougie WII (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium Lime Rust

Calcium Lime Rust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I removed the PROD tag from this article as I am contesting the proposed deletion. The prod was added by

WP:NPOV." CastAStone//(talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable product along the lines of drano, although desparately needing cleanup.--CastAStone//(talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the talk page: "While products are not exempt from being culturally significant, I sincerely doubt there's any potential with this one". Nobody's been murdered by CLR like with Drano. They don't compare. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of products that doesn't distinguish itself in any important way TheBilly (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, you're saying that only products used in crimes become notable? I thought they only needed to be written about, silly me. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man there, but I was saying....well, I was saying what I said. Please don't put made up words in my mouth TheBilly (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are your words. Either explain how the use of a product in a crime is necessary to notability, or kindly excise them.--Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheBilly. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source. I have a DIY magazine that recommends this in its Q&A section for one thing or another about every four months. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable product, if only for their incredibly corny ads on Australian TV they used to show a decade or so again. Needs to be copyedited to get rid of the promotional tone though. Lankiveil (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Delete - Little more than an advertisement, and as such is in desperate need of deletion. Well, I tidied up the article a little, removed the ad-like tone and removed the link to the manufacturers' web-site. Where it's notable enough to remain, however, is a different matter entirely... Alloranleon (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete It reads too much like an advertisement..."It removes calcium, lime and rust quickly and easily, usually within a few minutes."--English836 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article no longer sounds like an advertisement, but needs a lot more work. Mh29255 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable off brand product. Tavix (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. No non-trivial coverage cited. About as notable as Scot Young Research.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article as rewritten is not excessively promotional, and numerous newspaper articles talk about it,per the Google news archive search [25], so there is some potential for referencing and expansion. That said, some of the articles are doubtless (even in Forbes) in response to the company's press releases (though the same could be said about a great many references) and basically say what the product should and should not be used for. If the article described the product based on its chemical content, from Material Data Safety Sheets, and its history and market share, from the busines press, it would be a vast improvement. As for it being "off brand" I disagree. In its niche it is a major product, widely sold in stores in my area. Edison (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable albums. If/when it is released & covered by third-party references, recreate. As to

WP:CHANCE, it suggests giving authors a chance - say a week or so - to bring articles up to the minimum guidelines. This article is ten months old, and the AfD lasted a week. Pastordavid (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ain't That Life (album)

AfDs for this article:
Ain't That Life (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note: See discussion on Talk:Ain't That Life (album).

This is another article on an unreleased album by

verified. (Also, Andrews doesn't seem to have had a record deal since the collapse of DreamWorks, her previous label, in 2005, so there's almost no chance that this could be released anytime soon.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 07:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    Tally-ho! 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand posted is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. He has recently been using it in various AFDs, as he can't find any other reason to keep it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To give a possible article a chance is solidly based on WP:Deletion policy--that deletion is the last resort. Anyway, closing admins know what things are essays, and which essays have general support. Where this article stands, of course, I dont know enough to say.DGG (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom MiracleMat (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this album is notable enough to wait longer than two years to find a source for it. It will probably never be released, so this page serves little purpose. Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the need for a relist. Vala M's argument is not based on any recognizable policy, nor is the one used by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Cerebellum's argument at least has wishful thinking going for it, but no policy that I can detect. The deletes have it.Kww (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a bit on the album on Jessica Andrews GAC biography page. http://www.gactv.com/gac/ar_artists_a-z/article/0,,GAC_26071_4885839,00.html Does this help? Vala M (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also found a few other links. Including her website's biography page. http://www.jessicaandrews.com/bio/index.html I don't know how credible this is but I'll add it anyway. http://countrymusic.about.com/od/festivalstn/a/riverfront_thu.htm

And this http://www.tv.com/jessica-andrews/person/183274/summary.html http://todayscountrymusicvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/jessica-andrews-who-i-am.html

There are many different pages on the album on the internet. I don't know why this isn't considered notable.

Vala M (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete as non-notable album. May be re-created if ever released and covered by third-party reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (album)

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

Unreleased album by

All Music Guide at least verifies the album's presence (see here) but does not provide a cover or track listing. This album is probably not going to be released, either, seeing as she's no longer listed in her label's roster of artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Policy based delete arguments vs. weak keep arguments.

Fram (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ignika

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable fictional object. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Debate closed as moot. Article has been redirected to Characters and groups in Bionicle.

Rahaga/Toa Hagah

AfDs for this article:
Rahaga/Toa Hagah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Takanuva

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Toa Inika/Toa Mahri

AfDs for this article:
Toa Inika/Toa Mahri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKeep. Could someone tell me why EVERY SINGLE fictional(specifically bionicle)article HAS to be deleted?Oh, and "someones" blog is official.

  • Keep While sources are from discussion forums, the information referenced is from the series writer's posts only.
in other words a primary source. Ridernyc (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closed early due to the unanimous result and the withdrawal of the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor denial

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

This article has multiple issues but I'll try to stick to the main ones.

1. Firstly, the article violates WP:NPOV/Article naming which states that article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality and that they should not suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. The term "holodomor denial" is heavily loaded because (a) it draws a calculated parallel with Holocaust denial which is generally agreed to be a despicable phenomenon, and (b) because it is essentially an accusation of denialism - ie, a "pejorative term" which carries "the implication that the person or group denies scientific or historical truths".

2. The definition of "holodomor denial" given in the article - , ie "holodomor denial is stating that the...great famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine which...claimed millions of lives, never took place" is an

original research thesis which has no apparent support from reliable sources. A google search reveals that the Ukrainian government passed a law in 2006 declaring the holodomor famine to be an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people, and that the government is currently drafting a law making "holodomor denial" a crime. The Ukrainian government appears to be the only reliable source utilizing the term. Thus, "holodomor denial" means genocide denial, ie denying the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine was an act of genocide [26] [27] [28]
- a definition at odds with the definition given in this article. This distinction is of great importance because almost all the content of the article is based on the false premise that "holodomor denial" simply means "denial of the famine". Once this premise is removed, virtually the entire content becomes untenable.

3. The article is a

POV fork from Holodomor, and from other articles such as Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer where much of the content has been lifted and then reshaped in the new article in a loaded manner. By taking a loose and fallacious definition of "holodomor denial" as its main premise, numerous individuals and organizations can then be labelled "holodomor deniers" because at some stage they denied or downplayed the severity of the famine. But if one takes the definition of "holodomor denial" as employed by the Ukrainian government (the main promoter of the term and the only apparent source of any reliability which employs it) as "denial that a genocide took place", then most of the content in the new article is untenable and there is virtually nothing left which is not already covered in the Holodomor article itself or the other articles, but in a more NPOV way. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Termer and the other editors of this page have been persistently raising red herrings like this on the article's talk page for days (when they've bothered to respond to my concerns at all, that is). Termer's supposed references do not even mention the term "holodomor denial", let alone attempt to define it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gatoclass I interpret this yet another personal opinion of yours as a communication problem between you and me and the rest of the editors involved. Perhaps you never took a look at the refs and are not aware of the fact that the great famine in Ukraine is called holodomor [32]?And that the famine called holodomor has been denied? I've already suggested to you rename the article The famine called Holodomor denial [33] but for some reason you ignored this suggestion as well like you have ignored the references in the article.--Termer (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the term means is a content issue and not a matter for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Plenty of AFD's involve "content issues". The top two criteria for deletion mention content, the second one which states (I quote): "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." I am asking the community to make a judgement about whether or not a page with an inherently POV name like "Holodomor denial" and moreover with content based entirely on a demonstrably false assumption about the meaning of the term, with no reference in support of it, is content suitable for an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it seems beyond dispute that the Ukrainian government is passing a law against this, the subject is evidently suitable for this encyclopaedia. The presentation, title and tone of the article are what you object to and this should be resolved on the article's talk pages, not here. Deletion is not necessary to address your concerns - you are just coming here because you have failed to sway the consensus of editors working on the article, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming for a moment that the subject was legitimate as you suggest, does one really need a separate article to state that the Ukrainian government is passing a law against holodomor denial? This information is already on the Holodomor page itself, where it should be. Gatoclass (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One does need a separate article since suppression of information about the famine dates to the famine itself and that initial suppression is a significant player in current interpretations. For example, as Stalin suppressed awareness of the famine in the West and as a result failed to receive aid as in earlier famines, e.g., when Hoover managed massive grain aid to the USSR in the 1920's, what was his goal? To merely avoid embarrassment? To accelerate collectivization by increasing the numbers of starving incalcitrant peasants? This is worthy of separate examination on its own outside of the events of the Holodomor and contributing factors, which is the topic of the main article. I'm sorry, but your (Gatoclass's) nomination for deletion appears to be fixated on certain aspects, projecting them in a generic fashion (as in not approving of the term "denial"), and concluding this is all non-encyclopedic.—PētersV (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started this AFD because I felt no-one was responding to my concerns on the talk page, and because you insisted on tag team reverting even so much as a disputed template on the basis that my concerns were invalid. So I felt I had little choice but to consult the wider community over the outstanding issues, in hopes of at least getting a more constructive debate going. I chose AFD because, quite frankly, I have never had a response from an article RFC or other process, and thought perhaps I could get more response from an AFD, and also because I thought, obviously, that an AFD debate in this instance was justified.
I have tried to outline my concerns in my opening statement above. The article title is loaded and thoroughly unencyclopedic in my view. To make matters worse, the article uses an original research definition of this already loaded term in order to widen the field of targets. In addition I fail to see why the information presented here cannot be included in the already existing Holodomor, Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer pages (indeed, much of it already is).
Although I personally feel that any valid content at this page would be better included in the individual articles mentioned above, I am not implacably opposed to the notion of having a page which traces the history of public responses to the holodomor, although I have some doubts as to whether such a page will not eventually end up looking like a POV fork in any case. What I am opposed to is the framing of the entire debate through the loaded lens of a "holodomor denial" charge, and with an erroneous definition to go along with it. If the page name were changed to something more NPOV, and the flawed definition rectified, that might be enough to salvage the page. But if you are going to insist on keeping the loaded term and the flawed definition, as you have been doing, then I feel the only remaining option is to have the page deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the claim that I engaged in "tag team reverting" is just plain false. I did agree on the talk page that the tag was not justified—but that's miles away from actually editing the article and removing the tag. Please show me the edit where I did what you claim I did, or otherwise, please retract your statement, or make it more precise, so as not to impugn my editorial integrity. Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horlo removed the tag.[34] Then Bandurist removed it. [35]. Then Horlo removed it again.[36]. That looks like tag team reverting to me. You didn't perform any reverts yourself, you just stood on the sidelines and encouraged it. [37] [38] [39]. (Those three posts aren't a bad example of your dismissive attitude to my concerns over the last few days, BTW). But regardless of who exactly it was who did the actual reverting, it's clear I was facing a group of editors determined to keep a tag off the page by sheer weight of numbers. Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting the record straight. And, I didn't "sit on the sidelines"—I was, and I am, helping write the article (you know, some people do that, from time to time, not just talk). And, did you ever stop to ponder why so many editors disagreed with your tag (and now disagree with your AfD nomination)? Could it be (wonder of wonders!) that they had (and do have) some valid reasons, backed by facts, references, sources, sheer logic, and WP policies? Turgidson (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you once again for the gratuitous sarcasm. Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on.
But the other reason I think I came up against considerable resistance is because my concerns were not merely cosmetic, but structural. That meant potentially rethinking the whole article, and naturally editors who had worked hard on the existing content were reluctant to contemplate that. That's only natural of course - in fact, I can't be sure I wouldn't respond the same way in similar circumstances - but that is not to legitimize the response.
As to the jibe about contributing to the article itself - why would I want to waste my time carefully composing revisions to article content, when the other editors have demonstrated they can't even tolerate the addition of a mere POV tag? Apart from which, since this article has significant structural problems in my view, those problems need to be addressed before one starts adding to content. The strategic plan comes before the tactical maneouvres. Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the barb about "all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin" deeply offensive (though, like almost everything you say, devoid of basis in fact). So what if an editor is of East European origin (or for that matter, any other region, or continent)? Would you ipso facto question the value of his or hers contributions, and the good faith behind their editing, based on their country of origin? I find this is in violation of both
WP:AGF and basic human decency. As for the boasting about "strategic plan comes before the tactical maneouvres", it needs no further comment from me. Turgidson (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No I wouldn't. But when I come across editors who are apparently having great difficulty reconciling themselves to what seem to me to be fairly straightforward NPOV issues, then naturally I start to wonder why. As for your finding my observation "deeply offensive" - there are offenses given and offenses taken, and I am not responsible for the latter. I mean, would you seriously claim to be completely uninfluenced by your ethnic background or political beliefs? Surely not. Why then would you take offence at my comment? I'm a tad mystified. Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting my comments. That was not a "boast". Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents, for whatever it's worth these days (what with exchange rates being what they are): The minute someone invokes someone else's ethnicity or nationality as an "explanation" for their opinions, the person doing the invoking loses every shred of credibility he may have ever had in my eyes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. K. Lásztocskatalk 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! People's opinions are never influenced by their national loyalties. How could I ever have entertained such an outlandish notion? Thank you for setting me straight. Gatoclass (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood my point. Of course people's opinions can be influenced by national loyalties, historical events etc. What isn't affected is the validity of those opinions. K. Lásztocskatalk 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that Gatoclass guy just lost all of his credibility with that comment. Is he suggesting that anyone who "appears to be of East European origin" should have their opinions discounted? Laughable. Ostap 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea Ostap. Why don't you throw in a straw man? It might save you from having to think. Gatoclass (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:NPA. Ostap 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
At least when it comes to instances of Soviet wrongdoing, I guess. Geez, is experience worth nothing in this day and age? K. Lásztocskatalk 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :
    • 1) The subject is topical as the Ukrainian community marks the 75th anniversary of this tragedy all this year.
    • 2) The subject is notable as the Ukrainian government has tabled new laws to make Holodomor denial a crime punishable by Ukrainian law.
    • 3) The subject, although the term {Holodomor denial[ gives us 450 hits in Google English. In Google Ukrainian it gives us 16,800 hits, In Google Russian it gives us 213,000 hits. The number of hits is increasing as the subject becomes more notable.
    • 4) The term was introduced into usage in 2002. It was first used by Prof. James Mace and in the same year also Dr Taras Kuzio here from the University of Toronto. A number of conferences have taken place in 2007 where Holodomor denial was one of the subjects discussed. The definition and the phenomena does not qualify as original research.
      • So why haven't you been able to supply a source which supports this definition? I have supplied several sources above that clearly demonstrate the Ukrainian government uses this term to mean "denial that the famine was a genocide", not simply "denial that there was a famine". But still you insist your presumptive definition must be right. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is an English language source for an article specifically named Famine denial in 2002 Famine denial The Ukrainian Weekly, July 14, 2002, No. 28, Vol. LXX
          • Thankyou for further proving my point. That editorial clearly describes the famine as "genocidal" and equates "famine denial" with genocide denial. Which is just the point I have been making. "Holodomor denial" does not merely mean "denial that a famine took place" it means denial that a genocide took place. But whether or not a genocide took place is still a highly contentious issue, even amongst academics, as that very editorial concedes. And yet, here you are, blithely accusing umpteen different groups and individuals in the article of, in effect, genocide denial without for a moment reflecting that this is not a generally agreed-upon, encyclopedic fact, but only one particular POV. Gatoclass (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5) The editor nominating the article for deletion has no prior knowledge or experience in this subject nor language skills which would allow him to gain a greater incite into this topic.Bandurist (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6) The article is not discussing the facts regarding the Holodmor, the number of deaths, materials from Ukraine, or the controversial subject of Genocide and the Holodomor. The article strictly deals with the act of denial of the Holodomor, and contains a list of people and organizations that have denied the existence of the Holodomor over the past 75 years. It also looks into the mechanisms and the implications of denial and its continuation.
    • 7) In the opinion of this editor, the tags were only put there specifically to antagonise the editors and to discredit the subject. All the facts given pertaining to the article have been sourced and disputed claims discussed.
    • 8) The article is too large (and continues to be expanded as new information is added) to condense it into the Holodomor article. The study of Holodomor denial, its workings and reasons, has been the subject of a number of seminars and conferences, and will continue to be a subject in the area of Holodomor studies. Bandurist (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the term is current is scholarly and governmental usage, and is a well-documented phenomenon. Moreover, the split from the main article is beneficial because that was getting too long. The nominator should remember that a neutrality dispute arises from third-party disagreements (and he has shown none to demonstrate people questioning the validity of the term), not when a single Wikipedian disputes it and chooses to hold the article hostage with trifling objections. Biruitorul (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term may be "scholarly" in the sense that it is extant and traceable to a reliable source, ie the Ukrainian government. What is not scholarly is to write an article from the Ukrainian government's POV, which is what has been done here. Although in fact you haven't even managed that, since you've mangled the Ukrainian government's own definition of the term and substituted it with a broader one of your own. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not getting it, what's wrong with having the POV of Ukrainian government added to the article? Like already have been pointed out to you, [40] in case you're aware of any other POV's regarding the subject, please feel free to add these to the article. Since according to
        WP:NPOV in case multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep - per the other keeps. There is no reason to delete this article. The Holodomor article is too long to include this notable topic, and the article is well referenced. Ostap 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is scholarly, encyclopedic, well-written and thoroughly-researched, and describes a real and documented phenomenon. Those calling for its deletion seem to be the ones motivated by political goals, not the article's authors. K. Lásztocskatalk 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading the history of article's formation shows quality contributions from a number of different contributors. Since this is a delicate topic these contributions were well vetted by the wider community of editors especially for POV and original research and the result seems to satisfy the wider community as Wiki valid. Eduvalko (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given Soviet suppression of the existence of famine during its course, a topic sufficiently within its own right of an article, and certainly merits being continued. —PētersV (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per almost everyone here (for my arguments see talk of the article) and relist as DYK.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. By conditional, I mean two things. First, the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term). And second, the scope of the article must be made very clear. I personally believe that the article should not be renamed, but instead, it should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government). Bogdan що? 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all arguments I was going to use have already been mentioned. Holodomor denial is yet another example of Communist propaganda, which has never cared for sufferings of ordinary peoples. Holodomor itself is one of the biggest tragedies of humankind in the XX century Tymek (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per
    talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Withdrawing nomination

I think it's probably time to close this nomination. I never expected the nomination to succeed, given the obviously divisive nature of this subject area, but I had hoped to attract a few disinterested parties to join the debate since I appeared to be fighting a lone hand at the article's talk page against what I saw as significant POV issues. It's clear that strategy hasn't succeeded, and I realize now this is not an appropriate venue to try and promote discussion of relatively complex content issues.

Furthermore, having read the comments on the article's talk page above mine, it's clear that I was never in fact alone in my concerns, the very same issues that I raised about this article had been raised by a number of different editors prior to my involvement. So I think the danger I perceived that this article might remain in the hands of just one likeminded group, was probably somewhat exaggerated.

Obviously, I am at fault for not taking more care to first familiarize myself with prior discussion on the talk page, if I had done that I would not have felt the need to initiate this process. So for that omission, I think I should apologize. In closing this AFD then, I would just like to express my thanks to all those who took the time and trouble to comment. But I think it's time to take this debate back to the article's talk page where it really belongs. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Toa Metru/Toa Hordika

AfDs for this article:
Toa Metru/Toa Hordika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and there are no sources at all. Ridernyc (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa

Related AfDs:
Toa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this is the first, not second, nomination, and have restricted the sidebar to show only related AfDs. –Pomte 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
these section would great in the Bioncle article covering the entire franchise, there no reason for every aspect of bioncle to have it's own page, particularly when you look at the main article and the massive work it needs. Ridernyc (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on recently added sources. However, this needs a massive trimming as well. As for the remaining related articles, redirect them here with a (very small) relevant merge of apprpriate material. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the sources added talk about the entire franchise and only mention the character in passing. There are not articles about the characters. Have you looked at the main bionicle page if you trim the cruft from you would have a stub all this should be rewritten there. Ridernyc (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Brotherhood of Makuta (which also needs major attention). What little encyclopedic information there is can be merged to that article. There is little reason for this article, with no reliable primary sources, and failing WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT, to exist separately. BLACKKITE 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta (Phantoka)

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Errand of Mercy. GlassCobra 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organian Peace Treaty

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

Disputed prod. This Star Trek related article has absolutely no real-world notability, has been unsourced besides a single DS9 episode for 3 1/2 years now, and...well, that's it. This isn't Memory Alpha. UsaSatsui (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I just added two citations.Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject of the article has no wide notability outside of the Star Trek universe. The sources provided are not really sufficiently independent of the subject. Take it to Memory Alpha. Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, forgive me if I'm wrong, but one is an episode of the television series, and another is an in-universe encyclopædia written by
    Mike Okuda, who has worked extensively on the series. The other one is independent, but looking at the indicated page on Google Books ([41]), it doesn't seem to have anything but a brief plot summary of the episode in question, and doesn't seem to jive with the sentence that it's referencing. Lankiveil (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Comment, I apologise; there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm going on notability grounds here, not verifiability. I agree that Okuda is an expert (I own the first-edition of that book myself), and the content of the article is what happened on the show. But Okuda is not sufficiently independent in my view to establish notability. Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - There are plenty more sources out there - I just picked two. My work of a few minutes shows that the article is easily capable of improvement. Per
    WP:NOEFFORT, AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The heart of
WP:N and the very term "Notability" is that it's "worthy of notice". If something occurs in a show, and is then discussed an a book, distributed by a major publisher, ans available in bookstores nation/world wide, i see that as notable regardless if the book is named "Star Trek Encyclopedia".--Cube lurker (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. Being covered in a work that is exclusively about a single topic doesn't really count in my eyes. Unless this treaty is very significant in Star Trek, like the Prime Directive it should not have an article. Now, if there's more than a passing mention of this treaty, if the Encyclopedia goes on for 2 or 3 paragraphs about this particular treaty and it's importance to Star Trek and it's universe, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike's book is an authorized adjunct to the series by one of the Trek universe's creators. It's not an independent source. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable event in highly notable fictional universe. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sadly, Redirect to Errand of Mercy. This was supposedly an event of great importance but the series had to largely ignore it later due to its constraints on storylines, so it never gained wider significance. A trivial mention isn't enough for real-world relevance, and a branded encyclopedia is not independent enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect. No real world notability. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are times when the original content is so bad or inappropriate that it should be deleted before redirection. I don't think this is one of those times. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hughes (entrepreneur)

Andrew Hughes (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a promotional page about a non-notable podcaster. Delete as nominator. Aipzith (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm always worried when a bio describes someone's principal occupation as "entrepreneur". None of this chap's businesses or projects are notable, as far as I can see, and neither is he. Lankiveil (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - promotion, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be written by the subject and has no notability asserted.
    Brad (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Alaska

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

Alt-rock band that does not appear to meet

WP:MUSIC. The only sources I can find for them on Google are a couple of reviews of shows where they played the support. Notability is perhaps asserted through one of the members of the band being the brother of a member of Thrice, but I don't think that notability inherits that way. Lankiveil (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was nom withdrawn. Kurykh 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By this Axe, I rule

By this Axe, I rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

Poorly written article, non-notable book. —BoL 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, was later recycled into the very notable Conan the Barbarian books. Was able to find this source fairly easily: [42]. Agree that the article is in poor shape, but that is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Lankiveil (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I would like to withdraw, but, yeah, unless reliable sources can be found, I'll continue to stand. —BoL 06:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercheats

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

Contested prod. Concern: "No evidence from

WP:WEB." Suggest deletion per prod rationale: the article doesn't provide references from reliable independent sources to establish the subject's notability. Muchness (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep What is wrong with it anyways? Thanks to our webmaster, he has upgraded the page. No Mark Denver there, I pretty sure that the banned members of SuperCheats done it. Now, it has a very good and high level of vocabulary. I assume you guys to keep it. Its not a total mess now. Please, keep it.

—

  • Keep Nothing wrong with it now, aside from the very basic vocabulary.

— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.11.244 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep ITS FINE!! Whats wrong with it? Its well structured, and not biased. Simply lock it if it starts being vandalised, there are plenty of pages that are targets of vandalism, such as musical artists etc, you cant just delete something cos people decide to be twerps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifist 13 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2008
    • —
      few or no other edits
      outside this topic.       .
    • This article wasn't nominated for deletion because it's a target of vandalism (which is not a valid argument for deletion), it was nominated because there's a concern it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see
      WP:WEB). --Muchness (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanyō

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

No sources are given to confirm the article's discription. Heavily violating

WP:NOR. Also this notation is possibly non-notable. Neko jarashi (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: Given how often these characters appear in anime and manga, I'd also be very surprised if no commentary or sources can be found. The number of other language wikipedias that have articles on this is also very suggestive. Is there any information in the Japanese wikipedia article that can be used to support this one? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Redirect to Tengu seeing that similarities are almost uncanny. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The existence of a Japanese term for this archetype does not exemplify any kind of uniqueness. Supernatural characters are also found in other media. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Isabela

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

Another non-notable mall in Puerto Rico; searches for reliable sources turned up nothing to assert notability. (Most hits were for an unrelated Plaza Isabela in Bolivia.) Claims to be the "third largest and busiest" in the region, which is not only unsourced but also PoV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but allow creation without prejudice of a new article about the popular plaza in Madrid. I've no problem with deleting this for non-notability; I'm simply concerned that, since there is a square of the same name in Madrid, and it is quite notable, someone writing an article on the Madrid location may have a problem in the future. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article asserts notability: "third largest shopping center..." Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aguadilla Mall

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

Non-notable mall in Puerto Rico; a search for reliable sources found none in English or Spanish (keep in mind I'm fairly fluent in Spanish). Claims to be the only mall in its region, but such claims can't be

verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Landing Mall

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

Non-notable mall in KCMO. A search for online sources turned up nothing but blogs and directory listings -- no reliable sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball delete. Arrant piffle, albeit entertaining arrant piffle. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Insulation

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

Looks like a

WP:HOAX to me. Does not appear plot of book/film. Tiddly-Tom 05:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Their "asserted importance" is that they went "134,936,777x Platinum". Even I can tell that's a load of nonsense and that even the most lenient AfD will return the same result as the CSD tag applied to the articel. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Shamal

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

As far as I can tell this guy does not meet the

notability guidelines. I did some google searching for him and could not find any information at all, just a few video clips. -Icewedge (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep as it meets guidelines given the new references and moving consensus.

Jim Chapman (footballer)

Jim Chapman (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. Article was nominated twice for speedy deletion, both times being rejected. The second nomination, which I declined, was that the article didn't assert the importance of the subject. Subject perhaps isn't notable, being a football manager in the Scottish Third Division, but I felt it asserted enough importance not to be speedied. Still, probably doesn't meet

WP:BIO. However, this is a procedural nomination, and I really don't have any opinion. faithless (speak) 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuut-Riit

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

There is no assertion of notability through reliable sources, and as such its just an in-universe plot repetition of various plot points from the source article. Therefore, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet General Orders

Starfleet General Orders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article establishes no notability, has no referencing per

WP:RS, and is just plot repetition from the various episodes of Star Trek where the General Orders are used. As they are already mentioned where appropriate, this duplicates that and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep, it is a relativly significant part of the show. With a quick google search I found quite a few pages the enumerate and discuss the starfleet general orders.[44][45][46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewedge (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fan sites, and do not count toward the notability and referencing I am referring to, see
WP:RS. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Per the
    most fundamental statement of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias.... The existence of secondary sources such as Memory Alpha supports inclusion rather than being a reason to delete as it is evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Definitely not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Spyke on this. Memory Alpha already covers this and I have just merged some non-canon info from here into Memory Beta. Maybe delete then redirect to Law in Star Trek to prevent re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Prime Directive. This is a reasonable search term (and redirects hardly take up any space), and the content of this article would provide a nice supplement to the material in the Prime Directive entry, particularly as many of the directives as mentioned in episodes/films are discussed in either an implied or explicit relation to the Prime Directive. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a search term it would still find various articles, from where a reader could click on a link to Memory Alpha, and so read it there. I've just added an external link in Law in Star Trek to the Memory Alpha page on Starfleet General Orders and Regulations, which provides fuller info and context. There are only 3 incoming links from articles on episodes/races, and each of these three fully explains the relevant Order in the article, so the link adds little or nothing. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it might be smarter to merge/redirect Prime Directive to this instead? This is more of a parent article. GlassCobra 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Had positive improvement. is verifiable & serves navigation purpose. (nomination statement is unclear) PeaceNT (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances

Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This article is totally unnecessary, as all the notable characters have their own articles which state when they had their appearances. As such, this is I guess "Chartcruft", like list cruft. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, this article is obviously created as a section of the TMNT main article for space reasons, so the whole "notability is not inherited" mantra should not apply here. ( If we had a photograph as part of the TMNT article, would we be deleting it because it resides in a separate file from the text? ) This table seems to be the most efficient way to organize the information, and primary sources should be adequate for this kind of material as we've already dealt with notability.
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Perfect for TMNTPedia, but for us, trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While very different from a normal list, this is a legitimate navigation tool. No one has cited a guideline or policy that backs up the deletion of the article, and the only reason given is that it might be unnecessary. I do not believe that warrants deletion. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provided the facts presented is readily apparent in the sources.
    Taemyr (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Is a suitable navigation tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tables that concern subjects whose notability is established elsewhere seem acceptable. If the table contained many red links I'd have a concern but most of the links are blue. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination. SashaNein (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was close for now, and if necessary, re-open discussion.

Nishiki rice

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

Has anyone ever heard of this product, I mean, it may not be notable, yet it doesn't have any refs of notability. So delete as nom. —BoL 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I won't vote, as I have been watching the nominator verbally attack the original author relentlessly, but it does have 29k ghits and may or may not be notable. My point is the nomination appears to be loaded after nom reporting author to Vandal desk (was refused) and other issues. See authors talk,
    talk) 03:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If it's notable, how come he won't add the links? He needs the links in order to survive. —BoL 04:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is not true. You need to actually READ the policies on deletion. For an article to be notable, it must be verifiable (not verified) by reliable sources. A lack of sources is the DEFACTO reason to IMPROVE an article, not delete it. Please take the time to actually read
talk) 04:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I withdraw for now. But if he doesn't, I'll take the liberty to re-open the discussion myself. Happy new year. —BoL 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notable fictional character with real life influence, featured in a few books. The plot summary still needs some trimming. PeaceNT (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Stockman

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

This character establishes no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the plot of this characters appearances in various TMNT media. As the character is already covered in the articles on the actual media in the plot sections, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hint or proof of any real world notability thus far, which is the issue at hand, and all other article issues are irrelevant if that one isn't addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the length of the article, the problem is lack of independent sources.
Taemyr (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savanti Romero

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

This character establishes no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the plot of this characters appearances in various TMNT media. As the character is already covered in the articles on the actual media in the plot sections, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.

talk) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Luke Walton (musician)

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

Prod removed, so here we are. From the prod: No evidence of charts, tours, awards, or even of any full album releases--the misleading Amazon "CD" link has no CDs (since replaced with an iTunes-only link), just six MP3s that can be downloaded separately or together. Most Ghits are on blogs, MySpace, and other 'anyone can upload' websites. Shawis (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to

2018 Bomber. GlassCobra 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

B-3 Long Range Strike Platform

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

Violates wp:crystalball because the two sources given don't seem to pass wp:rs. There is no B-3 on the drawing board, it is a name for what they 'think' will be next. Citations are plenty o' google ads and conjecture.

talk) 03:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This was also a skeleton-like article last night and I will add more anyways so that it makes a bit more sense, but I agree on the facct it could be deleted. —Preceding
talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I added more, but I will redirect tonight if anyone else doesn't think theres room for improvement.

talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Since the 2018 article already has a head start, it would be the best use of your energy and contributions. I was only waiting for the AFD to close, but I guess you can go ahead and just redirect it, and merge any unique info you have.
talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll wait till I make any further decision making on this article as it has become a bit more extablished and there have been a few more positive comments. What time does the AFD close Pharmboy?

talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the info Bill. Ironically thats probably the best negative advice I've received in a while, and it wasn't from a teacher.

talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This is actually more like the 2037 Bomber. I just realized that while looking at the 2018 Bomber page. Does anyone think that I should just move this to a new page concerning the 2037 bomber? This really does contain conflcting information to the 2018 bomber when that factor is added.

talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete.

Fram (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nuevo Rico

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

procedural nomination — version brought to AFD: This is a "golden oldie", considered at VfD in June 2004 and deleted, then resurrected in October 2004 to live a full and happy life until being nominated for PROD-deletion. PROD nominator states "Does this article have any notability? It appears to be just an in-universe plot repetition without any referencing or notability." Considering the article was at PROD, the primary consideration should be keep(in some form)-or-delete. My personal suggestion is to redirect this to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings and tag it with {{R to list entry}}, the list being a list of fictional lands used as settings in the tale. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the original nomination is linked at the top of the page, though it was back in the days of VFD and not AFD. Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see it now. Best, --
Tally-ho! 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Two opinions don't really represent much of a consensus. Nevertheless, the article lacks any

WP:V sources despite being around since May 2006. Pigman☿ 07:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comedic Improvisation Alliance

Comedic Improvisation Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The improv group for a state university, but that alone lacks any notability. They aren't on a national scale, nor have done any notable acts, nor taken part in any famous events. Jmlk17 05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably good fun, but no sources attesting to wider notability found. Lankiveil (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDRP

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

Previous reason:This is an article for a paper a middle school does. It doesn't require article. This has no encyclopedic relevance Proposed deletion was removed so moving to deletion discussion SirGrant (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I go to a school in Maryland, Poolesvile High School, and an IDRP there is 20 pages and it is over 200 pts. My littler brother goes to Eastern, and he told me his IDRP was created in 1950, when the magnet program was made. So for the past 50 years, IDRP has been going on in Eastern, but also Poolsville and Roberto Clemente. Im sure that there are other schools that have the IDRP because my teacher from Ohio told me a school there has IDRP. So it might be the lack of research on IDRP participation, but the page should not be deleted. HIGHLY NOTEALE

68.50.109.84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to convince people that the schools testing system is notable if you spell it right (sorry, had to say that) but the question is: is it notable outside your area? Can you provide a link to someone else using the system? That is the difference in what is important 'locally' and what is notable, per the policy here.
talk) 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R Band

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

Hoax that speaks for itself. Picture is from an actual

WP:BAND. ~ twsX · TC · Typo-Warning! ~ 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Hoax or not, fails wp:band.
    talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven-Symoné (album)

Raven-Symoné (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a supposedly forthcoming album by Raven-Symoné consists of

crystal-ballery. The first and third citations mention that Raven-Symoné has worked with Timbaland and Mario, but nothing about whether they collaborated for an album of hers, and the second is to a thread on a Raven-Symoné fan message board. The others are ASCAP.com song entries that say nothing about when or for which album the songs were written. Many of the statements in the article—album's title, producers, release date etc.—aren't supported by sources at all. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator. Creator's history doesn't give me any reason to believe that improvement will be forthcoming.Kww (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge all; there is no doubt whatsoever that

original synthesis
. That is the case even for the more important characters.

The vast number of characters involved, however, would almost certainly make the

WP:NOT#PLOT in mind and eschew plot summaries). — Coren (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


Wade Load

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

Topic of the article is

WP:V
) states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - there are no reliable third party sources given in the article and I find it very unlikely that any wil be found.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Rufus (Kim Possible)
Monique (Kim Possible)
Doctor Drakken
Shego
Monkey Fist
Duff Killigan
Señor Senior, Sr. and Señor Senior, Jr.
Professor Dementor
DNAmy
Killer Bebes
Camille Leon
Motor Ed
James Possible
Ann Possible
Jim and Tim Possible
Steve Barkin
Bonnie Rockwaller
Yori (Kim Possible)
The Stoppables

Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I not wish to edit the Kim Possible Wikia as I do not know the nature of the advertising on the site and my contributions could lead to more people being exposed to said advertising. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep the articles of Shego and Drakken, because they ARE main characters of the show series and, along with the two protagonists (Kim and Ron), are the more popular characters. The rest of the articles should probably be merge as some "List of Characters" kind of article. In fact, I'm willing to start working on that, but still, Drakken are Shego are notable enough characters like to earn their articles. In the same vein, check that Shego's article got to be a Good Article.--Alexlayer (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge all but the most notable articles into a "List of" article -- per the part of
    WP:FICT that is not being disputed, which is that deletion is the last resort. Exactly which are the most notable, I leave to those who know the show better than I, but the fact that one of these is GA class is indicative that that one should survive, and indeed shouldn't have been brought here. (That I could recognize Kim, Ron, Drakken, and Shego long before I ever watched a show suggests that those are likely ones to keep, but I am not reliable, only a source.) All the issues beyhond notability mentioned by the nominator are cleanup issues, not causes for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Interestingly, looking at the
notability or other inclusion criteria (such as [[WP:NOT#INFO). Therefore I don't think that the article having GA status and the topic of the article not being notable are necessarily mutualy exclusive. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
]
Not explicitly, no, but notability is implied by the verifiability clause -- and given the number of people who have to look at and agree the article is good, it's generally a good assumption that someone would have raised a notability flag if it really was an issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that for any fictional character, however obscure, information can easily be
verified using the source material. [[Guest9999 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
]
Wade Load is hardly an obscure character. In fact he's one of the four main characters. Tahj Mowry, the actor responsible for his voice is always listed fourth in the credits, behing Nancy Cartwright(Rufus), Will Friedle(Ron Stoppable), and finally Christy Carlson Romano(the eponymous main character herself). ----DanTD (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but I didn't have time to write individual entries. - perfectblue (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the major characters, such as Shego, Drakken, and maybe Rufus, merge the more minor characters into subarticles. Anya Prynn (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a list of characters article absent the ability to demonstrate real-world notability, which is the criteria we use for fictional characters. The ongoing debate at
    WP:FICT acknowledges the importance of that standard & these all fail it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

While still a guiding policy in Wikipedia editing, WP:V was not written with popular culture in mind. It requires levels of proof that most elements in pop-culture struggle too meet, especially since WP:RS advices against most of the third party sources that would otherwise be used. There are plenty of sources out there to verify the notability of these characters, but they are in magazines, TV guides, and on stage at fan conventions. Sources which Wikipedia policies/guidelines aimed primarily at academic subjects discourage strongly. What we have here is a classic case of some well written (and some not so well written) entries that meet with the spirit of Wikipedia being put up for Afd because they don't meet the exact letter of the law.

In this instance I would ask that the administrators presiding over this case put spirit above policy. At least in some cases. For example, the characters

Doctor Drakken
are all notable characters in a notable franchise. They survived for 4 seasons and 2 movies. Which isn't bad since the show was canceled after finishing it's third season, but was relaunched after fans campaigned for it's return.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about the free flow of knowledge, not stiff unbending guidelines. Deleting, or even merging

Doctor Drakken are all highly notable because they form one half of the core of the Kim Possible franchise. Without them the franchise would not exist. They are well sources using appropriate sources for a children cartoon and the statements made in them are all justified by linking them to the episodes that highlight what is being discussed. I believe that this is a clear case when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
should be brought into play. WP:V and WP:RS in this case are just too restrictive on the grounds that no matter how notable a children's cartoon is you will pretty much never get any third party sources other than reviews on fan/viewer websites and the occasional magazine article in the back of a TV guide. WP:V and WP:RS are not designed to deal with such a situation. In fact applying them would pretty much wipe out all children's TV related entries other than a few contentious or historical ones.

Shego - Strong Keep. Shego is a primary villain who has appeared in 4 series, 2 movies, multiple video games, and a cinemanga comic. She plays a significant role in a notable franchise and is often portrayed as the villainous counterpart of the hero. Her notability is significantly strengthened by the fact that her popularity amongst fans directly influenced the direction of the show, with the franchise's production team writing the finale script so that she could come out of the series on top, rather than defeated.

  • Rufus (Kim Possible) - Merge to create a Team Possible page. Notable as a recurring character and a primary hero. Had several episodes devoted to him.
  • Monique (Kim Possible) - Merge to create a Team Possible page. Notable as a primary hero and the first new hero to be added to the franchise.
  • Doctor Drakken - Strong Keep - See Shego. A notable recurring primary villain. commonly used as an enabling character. Fan affection for this character influenced the final script for the franchise finale.
  • Monkey Fist - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Duff Killigan - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Señor Senior, Sr. and Señor Senior, Jr. - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Professor Dementor - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • DNAmy - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Killer Bebes - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Camille Leon - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • Motor Ed - Merge into
    Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
  • James Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
  • Ann Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
  • Jim and Tim Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
  • Steve Barkin Keep A recurring character often used as an enabling character or a source of conflict within the franchise
  • Bonnie Rockwaller Strong Keep See Shego. A Primary villain and enabling character specifically introduced as an adversary and conflict source for the lead role. The mirror image of Kim Possible and also a mcguffen character.
  • Yori (Kim Possible) - Merge into appropriate page

The Stoppables Keep this page already deals with multiple characters.

perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Guest9999's analysis is spot on. I doubt any secondary sources exist for any of these characters and most of the content of the articles either breaks
    Verifiability is also a sginificant problem. Doctorfluffy (talk
    )
A great any secondary sources do exist, but most are often ruled out under WP:RS because they are sources from TV guides and non-professional websites. Wikipedia regs are mostly written to deal with academic issues, not popular culture. Requiring a children's cartoon to have the same level of proof as a scientific paper is asking too much. As they stand, WP:V and WP:RS are inappropriately restrictive for the topic. This has been specifically allowed for under Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. - perfectblue (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these articles are ridiculous. NBeale (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all info to existing subsections of Kim Possible#Characters, period. I understand the difficulty in sourcing fictional characters, but, that said, we absolutely do not need a separate article for every character of a series, nor do we need a list. Anyone looking for the information will find it in the main article. --MCB (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request to whosoever presides on this Afd

The character listed above vary CONSIDERABLY in importance and notability.

Specifically, that the characters Doctor Drakken, Shego and Bonnie Rockwaller are considerably more notable within the franchise than all of the other characters due to the size of the roles that they play within the franchise, their importance to the franchise's scripts, and their number of appearances.

When reaching a conclusion could those preceding in this consider ruling separately on different characters, rather than in bulk.

perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline, if it is inappropriate it can be ignored. In this case a number of characters are core characters of a notable franchise. Their notability is demonstrated by their multiple appearances across multiple media over a sustained time frame. These are sustained primary characters. Notabiliy was not written to deal with such eventualities, and is flexible. I say, flex it. - perfectblue (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the characters are important to a
notability is not inherited (links to essay). The article for the series (Kim Possible) is not long (~17Kb) and additional information on the characters could easily be included if it is deemed appropriate. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
]


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

The result was Delete (and salt).   jj137 ♠ 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2

AfDs for this article:
Cars 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination — version brought to AFD: This was previously deleted via AFD and has risen from the grave a couple of times, only to be staked via Speedy. This time, I found the article PROD-nominated and did not feel a speedy was appropriate (not close enough to AFD-deleted version for

WP:CSD#G4); however, I would like to see this article Deleted and Salted so that it may not rise again until the movie actually gets going (if ever). As the PROD nominator put it, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- and there's really nothing in this article anyway." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment you do know that Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is an essay and not a policy or a guideline? Doc Strange (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it makes a good argument and is a pleasant read. Best, --
Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The whole point of the essay is that many articles have the potential to be expanded into noteworthy encyclopedic articles with citations and everything given time. It doesn't matter since that is NOT THE CASE here. This is a clear case of
WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing can be added to this article that is verifiable about a sequel. No studio announcements, no nothing.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong Merge +1000 internets to you, sir IP User! DesuXDesu (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HaHa sorry I didnt realise i wasnt logged in Curttrfc (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unsourced so it cannot be merged. --neonwhite user page talk 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this information were to be merged, it would just server the purpose of adding original research and speculation to the destination article. Merging is only for good information that for some reason or another does not quite qualify for its own article. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Stanley‎

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

Local child entertainer in local shows, non-notable — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AFD here
  • Delete as nom. Note that the article was first begun by its subject, raising some WP:AUTO concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete did some searching for her 'albums' and didn't find anything that was a reliable source, telling me someone is stamping CDs out in the basement. Some of the links are sites ripping off Wikipedia and even include the AFD statement, which I personally found hilarious. Not notable, fails wp:band.
    talk) 02:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: Website [47] doesn't seem to work with error message "The machine couldn't find your page". Poss fake sources to fake notability. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't make silly speculation. Maybe you're new to the net, and didn't know sites going down is pretty common. Lots of notable people have down or defunc sites (I'm NOT suggesting she's notable though). There's no reason to think anything is "faked". Now, in the case of this article, there's good reason for deletion (lacks required independent coverage per
      WP:LIVING upon close. So delete and move on (don't pile on) --Rob (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of issues addressed in Degrassi: The Next Generation

List of issues addressed in Degrassi: The Next Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, primarily unreferenced list that just duplicates episode summaries and character articles, and is too prone to

WP:FICT. The concept itself, of Degrassi covering relevant issues would be better covered in prose in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence Art Collection

No references quoted, and I can find none. Suspected hoax article. All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Mighty Antar (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there may not be much mention of mr lawrence or his art collection in the form of references,this is a factor he is begining to to change,with high profile donations to museums and new loans to be arranged through out 2008.Please also note that this is a page in the making,it is not yet complete. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk)
Comment. You may want to expand your wiki-horizons. So far, according to your contribs, your English Wikipedia career has been confined to this particular subject. Just doing what the
good book of Wikipedia says. DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I shall be expanding my "wiki-horizons" but i dont have all day to sit in on wikipedia at the moment.As for JohnCDs comments id like to point out that i dont see how mr lawrence is being made to look like a hero in this article and as for his age,well thats one of the things that make him unique in the art world.you may wish to delete this article but i asure you by the end of this new year it will be back with more references than you can handle. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.203.195 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI Comment Am I the only one who thinks you ARE Mark Lawrence, supported by the image you uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N503198853_58306_770.jpg (note perfect viewpoint of camera taking picture of self, including fish eye effect from being too close and poorly cropped on sides to hide the fact. I do a little photography as well.) so I would say there is a COI issue, lending more credibility to the hoax, or wp:vanity issues at best.
talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per nom. If reliable refs can be procured to est. notability in the future, author can reintroduce it then. Phyesalis (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no way to tell if it's a
    notability due to lack secondary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
  • Strong delete, no
    conflict of interest issue. --Kinu t/c 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Commment: an IP (most likely one used by the primary contributor to this article) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from this article. Continued removal may result in semi-protection. Also, according to the article, the gallery has an official website (http://malartcollection.co.uk)... which is actually an unregistered domain available for purchase. Come on, if you're going to blatantly hoax, try a little harder to make it somewhat convincing. :P --Kinu t/c 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have semi-protected the article after the AfD tag was removed yet again. If an IP wishes to contribute to the discussion, they may do so here. --Kinu t/c 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Asher

Prodded as hoax and deprodded by creator. Maybe my cold is jamming my head too much, but I fail to see notability. Contains some discrepancies and lacks verifiable sourcing. (I cannot find any reference to this Jayson Asher in a Google search or in the news. ) Dlohcierekim 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Google can't find "Wilhelm Corbin" either... GregorB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as garbage hoax and per nom.
    talk) 02:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I never thought I'd see an articel what that many legitimately added warning templates... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Also note creator has removed AfD notice. JuJube (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi-related articles

List of Degrassi-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary and barely maintained list that just duplicates the easier to maintain and better working Category:Degrassi category. Collectonian (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Santos Gallery

Antony Santos Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bunch of photos of a Antony Santos. Wikipedia is not an art gallery. I fail to see encyclopedic value of someone's photos. I say, delete together with all photos, leaving 1-2 for the article. I also hignly doubt that these photos are original photos of the uploader, but rather photos of photos from magazine pages. This one- Image:Antony Santos X.jpg - with no hi res triggered my suspicion. `'Míkka>t 01:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and even in an article they'd have to have some relevance, see Norman Rockwell for example. And that's beside any copyright issues. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the sort of place for this, Commons is. Lankiveil (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was delete.

talk) 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The Woods at Indian Field

The Woods at Indian Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed, so here we are. Un-remarkable housing development. No more than 10 Ghits for either name given. Shawis (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Consensus. PeaceNT (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truth

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

Way too much of this article sounds like the

original research of the user who originally created this page (who appears to be User:Caesarjbsquitti); the fact that entire sections of the article lack citations further backs up my suspicion. The main reason why this article was kept in the first discussion was because User:Caesarjbsquitti stated that a book on the topic was to be published in early 2007. IMH, YTDMNST Morgan695 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Keep The article doesn't feature citations for the most part, and is generally poorly-written, as well as ill-defining of the concept of half-truths. Agree with UsaSatsui; a complete is probably better than deletion, after all, as long as it's done relatively soon. Alloranleon (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable topic, regardless of whether the current page is OR or not. JJL (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it needs a complete overhaul due to the OR, and would probably be better off deleted in the meantime. Alloranleon (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Bit too involved for a wiktionary, which is the other possibilitycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable enough, not wp:neo, and the article isn't that bad for a start. Needs cleaning up to cite what would otherwise be OR, but is very salvageable and worthwhile.
    talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think that is contrary to
talk) 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT really is about liking the topic. It is our responsibility, on the other hand, to be concerned about article quality. There is a point where articles need more than fixing. This is a really borderline case (see my comment below). --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. This needs work, not a deletion. The solution could lie in a merge, a rewrite, better sourcing, whatever, but a deletion certainly isn't the answer. And can someone tell me just how deleting an article makes it better? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a pretty decent account of what a half-truth is, backed up by examples from statistics and philospophy, as well as everyday life ( eating 6 servings of vegetables a day, but as pizza toppings ). I don't see any "original research" as there is no editor-discovered or editor-deduced material in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm primarily concerned about the section Purpose and the made-up examples. The other sections are "merely" disjointed. Sources discussing why someone would tell a half-truth, shall we say, do not abound. It's probably fixable, but needs major work yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel the examples have a lot of explanatory value, but go ahead and delete the Purpose section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Deception, No need for its own article, especially with the poor state its been in. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no redirect; stand alone; it is the term that will be accessed. It is a meaty issue commonly discussed throughout Wikipedia and one that is being eaten away by the Five Pillars. It is one of many types of deception, so many that they are listed individually in blue. Otherwise the 'Deception' article will get too large. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.

talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Possessionless

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

procedural nomination — version brought to AFD: An article on the same topic was deleted in October 2007 under

WP:NOT a crystal ball." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as per the reasons I gave when I prodded it. Exxolon (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this stub has no content, context or analysis and fails
    spam for the band's next record. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Speedy delete A1 (no context) by User:Jj137 just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities official sites

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

This list could go on forever, official sites are listed on celebrities' pages. Dan LeveilleTALK 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sunil Sawani

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

I initially prodded this. No

Articles for Deletion. JayHenry (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was No consensus, leaning to Keep; appears to be a fairly stable list, though it needs cleaning up. BLACKKITE 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of local children's television series (United States)

List of local children's television series (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an overextended and never fully able to be completed, indiscriminate list of redlinks about every remembered local children's television show in the United States. The list serves absolutely no purpose. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 00:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
talk) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Recentism is only an observation. The issue is whether the list is possible to maintain. I contend that the list is stable because it is a historical list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, as a
    NN shows out? If kept, I'll take a crack at it. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No source. No evidence of notability, being a boyband member doesn't cut it. PeaceNT (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Olivero

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

Little content, nothing of any encyclopedic interest. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, seems to be covered in trashy gossip magazines: [48], which would indicate he's notable. Lankiveil (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Per
    Menudo, however much its membership frequently shifts.  Ravenswing  08:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - As American Patriot 1776 pointed out, little content and no encyclopedic interest. In addition, this reeks of original research, or alternatively may have been ripped from another web-site. In the absence of anyone willing to rewrite this to a decent standard, I say delete. Alloranleon (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He isn't really notable, I think you could just have a small bio about him on the band's article. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He isn't notable right now , but in some time he might be on the news all the time like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears .Lilgunner94 (talk) 5:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rigadoun (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article sucks. tbone (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_1&oldid=1116879883"