Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 2

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) per CSD A3. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Foily

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

Nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Err - Speedy A3/G2, I suppose. This article consists _entirely_ of the AfD, it has no history. Should be deleted, obviously, but... Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 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) 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also nominating for the same reason

Moff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Four months after first nomination, article is still unsourced and speculative; article is almost entirely a description (i.e. plot summary) of who wears what with almost no explanation of real-world Why? or So what? Two assertions about movie production are uncited -- and, even if cited, are insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree fully with nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Length of time during which an article hasn't been improved is irrelevant as to whether or not an article should be deleted. Citations can be added. The article can be cleaned up. There is no time limit during which either of these must take place. Rray (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can be, can be, can be -- since June 2004, it hasn't been. I suspect a main reason there aren't any sources is that there isn't any meaningful content to cite. Editors haven't met the burden of proof for verifiability to sustain this article. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After all this time, prove that it can be sourced. Or don't, because the subject seems too trivial for a general encyclopedia, and footnotes that prove that these insignia are used by the Galactic Empire wouldn't fix that.
  talk) 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Article states that "Star Wars producers have [n]ever firmly established a pattern and system for the Imperial rank insignia seen in Star Wars. This has led to much speculation, conjecture, and entertainment by Star Wars fans" but can't even source that.
  talk) 07:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as these awards have no
  notability outside of the Star Wars canon, let alone any notability in the real-world.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Doubtful these articles can pass notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the Galactic Empire is pretty well known and so the various ranks of it is something many readers will be interested and considering the notability of the topic, it should be reasonably verifiable. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - The Empire may be notable, but how is its rank structure? Where is evidence of the ranks' notability explained in these articles' five-year history? --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless can establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The passage of time is relevant here. We can't go on saying "it might improve" when it is clear that nobody is going to improve it. Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the article itself, which states: "Neither Lucas or the Star Wars producers have ever firmly established a pattern and system for the Imperial rank insignia seen in Star Wars." Therefore, such information could only ever be fan speculation. Even if it were 100% official, I can't see such a thing being covered in a general-interest encyclopedia anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 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 Speedy deleted as not notable by Dlohcierekim before I was aware of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootbeertap

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

Scarcely any encyclopedic notability Alloranleon (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unintelligible drivel. <KF> 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete either under
  WP:CSD#A7, non-notable bio (since it has to do with an in-game character). Take your pick, but I've tagged it under G1 Yngvarr 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete G1. Article creator removed db-nonsense tag. Pretty much no need for further discussion;
  Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• RE above Tell me about it. I hate it when they do that, blatant conflict of interest. Argh. Alloranleon (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings. Due to my fame in the game World of Warcraft i have been asked by many to place an informational page on wikipedia about who i am. Though this page may not meet specific rules or guidelines, I am learning and would be more than happy to tailor my page to your wishes. Respectfully yours, Rootbeertap

• Apparantly they didn't pool together to get you grammar lessons. No offense, but your page has no notability or relevance... Alloranleon (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've placed a welcome message on the users talk page, and a note on the contested talk page, with some general information on why this will pretty much never be. I'm trying to
  WP:AGF here, so I hope the author will heed both this general discussion as well as the information provided on the basic policies. Yngvarr 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Important Check out that link in the article, the one leading to the WoW forums. Bottom message. Pretty much explains this guy's motivations. Alloranleon (talk) 00:18, 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.

Ki (Dragon Ball)

Ki (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a fictional concept that does not have

Did you do any research at all into this subject? After all you made the same assertion about

Nights (video game character).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  Original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No sources to establish notability or provide real world context. In fact, linking to articles on the actual philosophy/concept may be better when mentioning Ki in Dragonball articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources exist[1].YetanotherGenisock (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not one of those provides significant coverage or discusses Ki in real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This looks to be mostly
  original research as well, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to determine which. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:58, 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 speedy delete, dictdef. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anmwe

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

Of little encyclopedic notability, and Anmwe.com is a parked web-site, leading me to believe that this article has been created with the sole purpose of advertising Alloranleon (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little more than nonsense -
  a/c) 23:43, 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 redirected to

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

)

• When duplicates exist like this, just redirect to the proper title. See
  a/c) 23:37, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helotes Park Terrace

Helotes Park Terrace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not clear why this housing subdivision is notable among the hundreds in each city. No improvement in the article in over a year. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely no assertion or indication of notability, and nothing in 5 pages of Google hits. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Checked Master of Puppet's Google search, came away with same conclusion - no notability at all.
  Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep (clarify policy, please): My understanding from a year or two ago is that WP policy allows even very small geographic and urban entities their own articles. However, I did not find a reference in a cursory search. Would someone point to a policy guideline, please? If a contra-indicative reference is provided I'm prepared to change my recommendation. Hu (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. Subdivisions are generally not notable. There is no assertion of notability in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:31, 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. A complex debate with no clear consensus in my view to delete. Arguments for retaining the work and improving it on a day to day basis were particularly relevant. Concerns over notability of companies included in the list are met by normal

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

)

This was prodded in June, see discussion on talk; no one disagreed with deletion but it was suggested that it be discussed. This seems redundant with the set of categories Category:Companies of the United States by state as is (there is no additional information other than an alphabetical list of names); many of the sublists for states have been deleted by various means which makes this master list rather useless. It was suggested this is a target for COI editors promoting their company, and is harder to keep updated than a category would be. Redlinked companies have been periodically removed (many were of articles since deleted for notability) so it's not useful as a requested articles list. Rigadoun (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. If keep all is consensus, can the closing admin undelete all the sublists, which were deleted via prod. They're obviously needed for the article to work and basically have the same merits/problems as this article. If delete is the consensus, the ones that still exist can probably be prodded. Rigadoun (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I say, undelete them all anyway. PROD is not an appropriate way to deal with the sub-lists of this list. It's clearly and self-evidently NOT uncontroversial. AndyJones (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this list and its sublists. It is not redundant with the categories. It contains redlinks which cannot be captured by the category structure. If it needs help, then improve it. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: list is not encyclopedic, it appears to have
  Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, which is exactly what this list is. Mh29255 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the whole list, including sublists - First of all, redundancy between lists and categories is a good thing, and deletion of one in favor of the other is discouraged, according to the guideline
  WP:CLS. Lists are superior to categories in many ways, and are increasingly being used as tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia's articles. Fourth, almost any page on Wikipedia could be the target for spam/self-promotion. The only way to prevent COI completely is to erase all of Wikipedia, but that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The same principle applies to any subject. We shouldn't decline to cover a topic just because it might be spammed, or might be vandalized, or might be POV'd. We fight those things directly by reverting or correcting specific instances of them. We have thousands of volunteers/editors for this very purpose. And once such problems have been identified, we deal with the source of the problem, by going after the spammers/vandals/POVers themselves, either blocking them or confronting them via Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Fifth, lists are still very useful as requested article lists even when some of the redlinks lead to an "already been deleted" notice. Besides, links to deleted pages should be delinked when those pages are deleted. If they aren't, then whoever runs into them should finish the job. The Transhumanist 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Transhumanist, who makes a great argument per
  WP:CLS. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Transhumanist said it all. AndyJones (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This list could grow to have millions of entries, not encyclopaedic Computerjoe's talk 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category is sufficient and the list redundant. Keeping redlinks is not a good reason to keep a list. If the article is a redlink, it means that the company is not notable for wikipedia or hasn't been created yet. If the former than it shouldn't be in the list either if the later, use a project collaboration page instead to list companies that deserve an article but don't have one yet. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is listcruft at its best. There are SO many companies out there, there can not be any potential encyclopaedic value in such constructs. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a manageable list. Companies open and close every day. It is not possible to maintain the list. It could never be a factuall list. There will always be errors. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've been looking at these lists, and have prod-ed a couple of the sublists slowly over the past few weeks. My reasoning behind the prods is based on a couple of things. First off, all of these lists are nothing more than an alphabetical list of names; there is no other information provided. If the lists were a table with Net income, or other anything else I could see keeping the lists. As current, they are nothing more than a duplication of the categories. Next, these lists are very hard to complete and keep free of conflicts. The basic requirement is that the company be headquartered in that state/country. There are thousands of companies that could be included in each of these lists. If we want to keep it limited to notable companies, then there should be references for each company to establish notability. These lists also seem to have many red-links to companies that were removed for various reasons. A list shouldn't contain a red-link to a company that doesn't have a page on Wikipedia; the company doesn't have a page for a reason (usually because it isn't notable). As a side note, this list was included in a previous AFD along with a lot of other lists. They all ended up being kept but the one of the main arguments was that the lists provided some information not captured in the category. For example, some of them included what sector or industry the companies were a part of, others included the market cap; which none of these list contain. Ank329 (talk) 22:44, 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. No sources, notability not established, even in the stubified form.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panetics

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

Incoherent nonsense. John (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I made an effort to clean this one up, but after finding virtually no significant sources unconnected with the founder or the organisation, slapped a {{
  iridescent 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fundamentally unverifiable form independent sources, everything I could find tracks back to one man and one website. Virtually nothing on Google to work from, either. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regardless of the way this article is written, if the consensus decides that the subject matter isn't notable enough to warrant a cleanup attempt, we should probably consider
  Ralph G.H. Siu for deletion as well, as he doesn't seem to have any assertion of notability outside of this field. I will await the decision on this before starting a debate on him...or alternatively we could just lump it in with this one. Tx17777 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Although Siu's article isn't up to much, his military record looks interesting enough that it could probably pass
    iridescent 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per iridescent and JZG - and delete the other article too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- essentially one person's theory with very limited reception. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While much of what the
  Humanistic Psychology movement generated sounds like nonsense to the average reader, it was a huge deal in the 70s and is hardly obscure. Perhaps an edit with further explanation should be suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ByronHudson (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all above; also very, very hard to understand for someone who has no experience in the field to understand. If that could be remedied and sources could be found, sure, let's recreate it... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no apparent assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See here for example concerning notability. But of course the article has to be improved. <KF> 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as it currently stands, the article is nonsensical because it is totally confusing and because it is attempting to discuss what appears to be a psychological, political, physical & philosophical subject with unsubstantiated religious-based implications. If someone can fix this article, I am willing to change my mind to keep. One article that I found that seemed relevant is here: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__cat/_c1836/Culture, but I am not an expert in this subject matter. Mh29255 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Strangely, some who vote "keep" and others who vote "delete" want the same thing: a good article on the subject. Could we, as a sort of compromise, reduce this article to a stub, add this deletion discussion (which includes some sources) to its talk page and wait for someone knowledgeable to come along and expand it? <KF> 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This topic appears to be notable, but needs to be stubified. If no-one will do it, I will have to say it ca not be fixed and thus must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one man and one website ?? pseudoreligious ?? Siu wrote in 1964 "TAO OF SCIENCE" with one of the top established scientific publishers: Whiley: The Tao of Science: An Essay on Western Knowledge and Eastern Wisdom http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Science-Western-Knowledge-Eastern/dp/0262690047 - or SAGE as mentioned in the refernces - maybe someone can look outside of the box or certain jargon or concepts and bridge concepts and cultures - I feel lost as I have added some links and refences - to well known people like Johan_Galtung [2] - who spoke at Ralph Siu's grave an eulogy.

Siu's work is in the Library of Congress and the volumes are sold by his Panetics Society. So the question is "who can find another expert and can we afford anesthetics of and piecemeal wisdom. Another question would be to revisit groupthink and clanthink. (Warfield [3] - another member and collegue of the late Siu's ISP society) --Benking

• Delete if someone finds sources that show the topic is
  original research I have no objection. However such an article would have nothing in common with the headache inducing mess that currently inhabits the page.[[Guest9999 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
  ]
• Delete. The only independent source seems to be the citation noted by User:KF, which is a mention in one chapter in a Ph.D. thesis. If the article is not deleted, it should definitely be stubified. Hal peridol (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve and find native editor. The Delete entries above seem strange to me. The PhD Thesis of Goppold is nice but not on the level of life-time contributions of Ralph- GH Siu. Have you ever tried A9 (by AMAZON) [4] or Google Scholar or academic repositories ! References to Publishers like Wiley, Sage, MIT, ... and national sources are included in MY CONTRIBUTION and in entry of Ralph_G_H_Siu but that looks like being deleted last night. Strange procedures and conduct you maintain here in such discussions. I am awfully sorry that i am not a native speaker and have normally no time for exercises such as this !- how should i call it "Deletionism" ?? my advise would be: 1. explicitly display the evidence and reasoning that justifies a particular point of view; 2. refrain from using ad hominem attacks, slogans, epithets; 3. Suspend judgment until after having read the relevant texts, ....

and inform the original author - like me - when people like Siu are deleted without any information or discussion. I met Jimmy Wales when he was in Berlin some years ago - maybe he should revisit the "Deletionism" exercised at his "WIKIPEDIA" - as I feel there are many people with much sympathy but feel discussions like above look strange. This are my 5 cents - maybe some more and diverse reviewers are needed with WIKIPEDIA and laws like requisite variety should be applied, and if the typically user can not judge "a new science" and so stays on the surface and hide so statements can not be seen in context. --Benking —Preceding comment was added at 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I did inform you of this article's listing here. --John (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like nonsense to me Pilotbob (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a stub and Improve. As prominent people like secretaries of state and Peace Studies founder Johan Galtung speak at Ralph Siu Memoriam lectures, this cannot be considered valueless. Comp.: Individual(!) "Human Rights" was introduced to the UN by Mrs. Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt, and is well known but not well established today. China (focussed on collective service) and Arab world denounce it as being a western idea only, based on values of Humanism and Christianity; there is no "natural" deduction of human rights. Would you therefore consider the philosophical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism as a pseudo-religion? In the "west", the "new" credo of individual human rights of self-development, incl WOMEN and CHILDREN, is so new that Human Rights education is still in its beginnings and the first curricula are now only being tested in European schools. UNESCO's special rapporteur recently complained about human rights daily being abused in german schools and a coalition of 100+ large german organisations is now promotion a change in elarning culture http://www.national-coalition.de/ -- In the East, the reduction of suffering is a central issue, and it was for example a central teaching of the young, future Chinese Emperor to reduce the people's suffering (this was NOT the case in Europe!). In this tradition, we can see Bhutan's governance principle Gross National Happiness, which measures not only economical, but also ecol., spir. and cult. wealth (the Queen held this speech as opened of the "Global Dialogue on Poverty and Wealth" at Universal World Exhibition expo2000 in Hannover, 2000), and thus decided for ecol. protection measures in the constitution. This is discussed as a good practice example in eco-socially responsible governance for sustainable development, internationally - easy to the eastern worldview but not to the western, which is why Siu developed this approach to be further developed in humanist studies and education. A similar "thinking model" is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Footprint, which is also only a general idea (an NO WAY a scientifically viable detailed approach) that indeed functions to nurture perception for global reosurce cycle issues and adopt more sustainable consumption patterns. -- Panetics are a step to "visualise" and "quantify" suffering (for example of Iraqi people vs benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein); suffering (not profits) is yet neglected in political decision-making neglected just because it is "out of sight, out of mind". Panetics is an approach to develop such thinking models. -- A problem here is that amateurs without knowledge of deep knowledge of cultures, religions, ethics, values, humanities, worldviews and their VERY concrete implications for governance are judging things inappropriately: pseudo-religion etc., which reminds me of the racist South African government 20 years back. -- My job usually is to bridge cultures and translate between ideas to make things understandable: which is - I absolutely agree - the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. I offer to get involved in developing this STUB into a legible and comprehensible article. I think it makes sense in the world today, to at least get the word and step towards reduction of suffering into the WEST's encyclopedia. Deleting it is quite a symbol! -- SUGGESTION: Give it a month, since this requires research for sources and links to other wikipedia entries dealing with related Eastern philosophy etc issues, and I can work towards an article, - with 1 wikipedia expert to have a look now and again on improvement concerning wikipedia ecycl. code: someone who has appreciation for the article and to see it developed, with some basic competence in intercult., humanities, cultures - not someone denouncing such as babble and nonsense (while admitting not having understood a thing; come on, people...). Well, there are in fact people that understand it. The thing is to rewrite it so people without academic education understand it. I offer joining in, but not tonight. Patience, please, and a contact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltgeist (talk • contribs)
• Delete As written, it's pretty much nonsensical. The problem with the reasoning of (paraphrasing) "let's keep it, we'll clean it up someday" is that, historically, it rarey if ever works. Wikipedia is a top-10 website with the eyes of the world upon it. There's no excuse for keeping articles this poor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as outlined numerous times above, this article is just so much nonsense. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is a misunderstanding about this article. User:Benking should be forgiven for having created rather clumsily a valid entry on a difficult topic. Panetics, despite its exotic terminology, is not a fringe science but a proposed discipline in social science: as such, it is just an idea among others. Is it an idea 'notable' enough to be included in this encyclopedia? The answer can only be a resounding YES, not because a lot of people know about panetics, but because dozens of highly qualified people have, quite independently, subscribed to it: suffice it to name Kenneth Boulding, Johann Galtung, Anthony Judge, and Ralph Siu himself who is a highly respected author deserving an entry for himself. In addition to Professor Goppold's work mentioned here above, there is a 1997 Ph.D. thesis by Russell Doyle Amerson entitled The universal duty to alleviate suffering: an ethical grounding for Siu's new discipline of panetics. The International Society for Panetics has been founded in 1991 by some sixty scientists, physicians, business leaders, scholars, artists and writers from several countries. The Society is more or less dormant by now, but it was quite active in the nineties. As showed in the article Suffering, panetics is still nowadays one of the few approaches that are proposed in the social sciences for dealing with the phenomenon of suffering in a specialized, specific, or systematic manner. User:Weltgeist volunteers for improving the article. I will help this person (contact me on my user page). And I will 'stubify' the entry immediately. Others contributors are welcome, of course. Robert Daoust (talk) 00:26, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy national football team

Normandy national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, article about a team representing the French region of Normandy that played only a friendly match in 1921. Clearly fails

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One friendly game in 1921 against Brittany seems to suggest the team was formed more for an informal kick-about rather than to be a serious attempt at a "national team." Nothing to indicate any further activities since then or to suggest that the one game they did play was in any way notable. Tx17777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see any reason to keep an article on a team that has played only one game, and a game that has no notability itself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly not notable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tx17777. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Hardly even any context in here... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tx and nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Tx and nom. Mh29255 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be more interesting and credible if a match report was written, but none attempted  ClaretCarlyleClaretCarlyleContributions/ClaretCarlyle 
• Delete clearly nn, and unverifiable Mayalld (talk) 16:33, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This might be controversial, but I don't believe this article should not exist for two similar reasons. For some background, the article refers to

So, the reason I am bringing it here is because I don't believe the article establishes notability. Per the

My primary reason for wishing to delete the article is because I do not want this to set a precedent. I do not want

As an update, the category Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes has been created. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a something which i am only slightly leaning on the support side of things. I feel that if we let this go through then there is argument to have Category 3 lists then Category 2 lists and so on and that just isnt necessary. The Catagory 5 hurricanes are the most notable hurricanes and perhaps these lists should be drawn here. I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and i believe it should be at Cat 5. I feel that this should exist as a category, eg. Category:Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes and be applied to all other strengths of hurricanes. However i am open to other views which i will consider before i really decide my opinion of the fate of this article. Seddon69 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, this list is bloaty and arbitrary. Most of its elements do not even have their own articles (nor, probably, should they). This is a list whose purpose can be better served by a category such as Category:Category 4 tropical cyclones. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First, am I allowed to oppose the deletion? This article is not being deleted because it is not good, it is being deletd because you don't want to see other articles of this sort. Really, this is one article, one more article, in the millions of articles that exist on wikipedia. What does it hurt to keep it? And, this article has knowledge. Knowledge is what wikipedia intends to have the enrite sum of. If we are ever to accumulate enough knowlegde so that people can rely on wikipedia to have articles on everything, we have to keep this article, and other good articles that are being deleted just because we are afraid that we are going to have to many good articles. Any article has potential to get to FA or FL and this article has the potential to do just that. I very much hope we decide to keep List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. Juliancolton (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While touching, that doesn't really address the issue, and citing millions of other articles is
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong keep - This is a very nice article and provides an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes. The argument that the topic isn't notable is applying a different definition of notability than that used by Wikipedia; the nominator argues that it isn't notable because the hurricanes are not especially rare. However, "notability" for Wikipedia means the availability of reference material to write a good article. The topic is clearly notable because there is plenty of reference material; in fact, most of the hurricanes on the list have their own articles. If an article listing tropical storms is a bad idea (I agree), that doesn't constitute a valid reason to delete this article listing major category 4 hurricanes. BRMo (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets
  talk) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment An article of this type MUST include data on category 4 storms that also achieved category 5 status. Doing otherwise skews statistics and borders on original research. — jdorje (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was doing statistical analysis and drawing inferences, then I'd agree that it would need to include analysis of storms that achieved category 5 status; it would also be original research. However, this article is just presenting a list and some descriptive data. That doesn't constitute original research and is perfectly appropriate as a presentation of the data. BRMo (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this argument to the talk page. But for the record, the article says "eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean" which is flat-out incorrect. — jdorje (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it says is In the years between 2001 and the present time, eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean. That is clearly what it says. I don't know how you could have missed the first half of that sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Very nice article, clearly encyclopedic topic. Plently of sources available to establish notability. BRMo said it all, really. AndyJones (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Everyone here should keep in mind that the notability of a list is not established by the notability of its elements. Rather, the notability of a list is established by the notability of the list's theme. In this case, the notability of a "List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricains" should be proved or disproved by demonstrating the (non)notability of "Category 4" itself. The nominator seemed to be arguing in the right direction, but I believe the "keep"s to appear misguided. For example, I can probably dredge up a treasure trove of sources for List of Canadian actors to be interviewed on CNN, but that doesn't mean I should make the list, and it doesn't mean it's notable (which by the measure some of you have explicated, it would be). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment once per season doesn't seem particularly excessive. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - per BRMo. The list isn't violating any policies or guidelines as far as I can tell. It definitely meets notability guidelines. When is this going back to Featured list candidates? The Transhumanist 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The argument I have gotten is that "category 5 is more important and notable than category 4. Therefore, list of category 5 hurricanes is needed more than category 4". This is incorrect. Take a look at
  List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. 3 of the deadliest atlantic hurricanes were category 4. Only one was category 5. This means that category 4 is more notable than category 5, dosen't it. Juliancolton (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That is a poor argument. No, that does not mean Cat. 4 hurricanes are more notable at all. As I mentioned before, there are three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes, which means there should be three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes on the deadliest hurricanes list. By that logic, there should be a List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, as well, since many of them were also on the list. And why not Category 2, since Fifi was 4th on the list and it was a Category 2? Why should these articles not exist? a) It'd become too much. Since 1995, there have been 21 Category 4 storms alone, along with 9 Category 5 hurricanes, resulting in an average of 2.3 Category 4 storms per year. Given there have been 104 hurricanes in general since 1995, that is an average of one out of every five hurricanes that would appear on the list. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would like to add that the notability of this article needs to be PROVEN with EVIDENCE. If evidence can be shown that category four hurricanes are notable then i would be willing to accept that this article should exist. Whether or not this article is well written should not be used as an argument. Category 5's are at the top of this particular scale and therefore notable and there are articles purely about category 5 hurricanes in general. I need evidence of category four hurricnes themselves being notable on thier own by their own merits. Seddon69 (talk)

• Moderate keep. I've been asked to comment on this article, and whether or not it should be deleted/delisted. If it were kept, I agree with jdorje that you would have to include category 5 hurricanes within the article. Not counting a category 5 hurricane as having gone through category 4 first makes little sense to me. I saw a passage about not including tropical depressions in one of the table due to data issues. Considering typical NHC error on intensity (about 1/2 a hurricane category), that comment could disqualify any of the storms listed within this article as well as any related hurricane category lists within wikipedia, let alone tropical depression inclusion in a certain table. While I don't see a strong reason for this page to exist, I don't see a strong case for it being deleted either. NHC considers major hurricanes (category 3 or above) as unusual or rare...we can go one or more seasons without one...so hurricanes of category 4 strength are notable, if that was the notability definition you wished to use. I'm going to read up on notability...some of the other comments made previously are making me reevaluate what notability really means. Category 2 or 1 hurricanes would not be notable merely because of their wind speeds since they are so common, so I'm not concerned with lists for weaker hurricanes being created. There are lists on wikipedia that are less useful, in my opinion. If you included category five storms within this list and rename it something like Atlantic hurricanes which have reached category 4 strength the usefulness of the article would increase. I can imagine people finding the article useful, if modified in this fashion. I don't think it should be deleted merely because it does not focus exclusively on landfalling tropical cyclones. If deletion is passed because the article is considered original research, any of the project's ACE pages would also be up for deletion on similar grounds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see some evidence that specifically talks about category 4. I feel that be a major hurricane merely clumps it together with 3, 4 and 5. In this case it should be a [List of Atlantic major hurricanes] which would pass under notability. Also Category 5 hurricanes are notable in their own merits and are tlked about as a single entity. I feel that this article cannot be supported as being notable by itself. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Seddon, as per our discusson on IRC. From
  WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case the question is whether category 4 hurricanes, as a group, are notable, and the wikipedia guideline is to look for independent/outside sources that make that distinction. The easy comparison here is to look at category 5 hurricanes, where such a distinction IS made by a lot of sources; see here and here, among many others. But is it possible to find similar examples for Category 4 storms? I do not believe so. Therefore, most of the arguments up to this point on both sides are misguided. It does not matter how rare or common such storms are (lists can be any length, if the list is otherwise justified), nor that the article gives an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes (side note: a "major hurricane" is defined as Category 3 or greater), nor that there's sufficient reference material to write good summaries of each storm (every Atlantic storm since 1851 has enough material for a good summary; that doesn't mean that List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A would be a good list, although it would cover nearly as many interesting storms as this article does). In summary, this list does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines, and so I am casting my vote for delete. As another side note, however, you could probably make a case that List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes does meet notability requirements, as that's the cutoff for a "major" hurricane which the NHC does use as a criteria for some lists and danger assessments. — jdorje (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• By that logic, category 4 hurricanes/typhoons would be non-notable yet category 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be notable. If a storm has reaches category 1, it is no longer a tropical storm. There is a LOT of research out there singling out hurricanes/typhoons/severe cyclonic storms as a subgroup from weaker tropical cyclones, and press coverage increases significantly for storms that have winds of 65 knots versus 60 knots, which would therefore make storms reaching category 1 strength notable. There have also been published studies mentioning that most tropical cyclones which reach hurricane/typhoon strength peak out at the category 2 level. So even though they're the most common, category 2 hurricanes are somehow more notable just because there has been specific research mentioning category 2 hurricanes? Because researchers and the media do nothing special for category 4 hurricanes, that makes them non-notable? Have I understood your point correctly? To me, that would more fully open the pandora's box that led to this deletion suggestion, for better or for worse. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are three differences. First,

WP:N speaks about sources being "independent of the subject"; although it is a bit vague on this, my interpretation is that internal research on a particular category would not in itself make a list of that category's storms notable. Second, research or articles that simply mention a particular category are not relevant to this argument (JC please take note, as this is primarily what you are pointing to); we are not talking about individual storms but about the list itself - note that the two examples I gave for the Cat5 list are basically duplicates (though with much less detail) of the WP list article itself. Third, the cutoffs are as you say, with the distinctions being of category 1+ (aka hurricanes), category 3+ (aka major hurricanes), and category 5; none of these include the 3/4 boundary which is the one in question here. — jdorje (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • • • This site states that Major hurricanes, categories 3 4 and 5, are "rather rare". This means that category 4 is a major hurricane, notable, and are just as notable as a category 5. Juliancolton (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rarity is not a criteria for notability. Secondly, that site does not help your argument as it distinguishes between "major" (3+) and non-major hurricanes. Thirdly, the source does not give a LIST of any hurricanes, much less category 4 hurricanes, so it cannot be used as an example of why a list of category 4 hurricanes is a notable list. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is not a good argument. By that theory, a meteor shower that occurs once every hundred years is not notable. Or, that an illness that effects 2 1 person a year is not notable because that person didn't die. And yes, in this case rarity is notablity. Juliancolton (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're reading more than he actually wrote. Saying that "X is not a criterion for notability" is very different from saying "X is a criterion for non-notability." Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • After going over the notability page (again), I think the list is notable because a) category 4 hurricanes are a subset of major hurricanes and common sense would indicate that if major hurricanes are notable, so would category 4 and 5 hurricanes since they are subsets of major hurricanes (common sense is mentioned in the notability page). Secondly, there are plenty of references (HURDAT particularly) indicating intensity of tropical cyclones, which makes it easy to determine which storms fit category 4 intensity. Hurricane categories are explicit in the best track for hurricanes impacting the lower 48, and NHC has created a list of hurricanes impacting the United States in particular since 1851. I believe the common sense provision would prevent lists being made of category 1 and 2 hurricanes. To some degree, the
                  List of notable Atlantic hurricanes article is already a variation on a list of category 1 or greater tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Basin. There is no list, that I know of, that lists hurricanes of any category other 5. For that matter, there are few sources that lists tropical cyclones by amount of rainfall country by country. Does that fact kill any of the TC rainfall lists that I've been creating for the project? Also, the page does mention that there are exceptions to any wikipedia rule. Some of us have seen firsthand what happens when we apply hard and fast rules to articles, their contents, and people's reactions to comments made about such rules and articles...people can get testy and drop out of the project, even if that was never the intent. Maybe that's why we have fewer people in the project now than several months ago. Since the article is already created, I still vote to keep it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • Then this article is to be kept then. We should wait for the other parties to voice their opinion before this AfD is closed but seen am im here i think that we need to strongly think about whether a similar list should or should not exist, and also whether this means that there is an argument that all cat 4 hurricanes should have an article whether or not they make landfall. I will start up a discussion on the WP:TC talk page but we need to decide whether articles like that should only be published if they are of a high enough standard otherwise it may result in huge number of low quality low notability article that are simply not gonna get very far. I think that we should rely on common sense in these cases. Seddon69 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (edit conflict)I personally do not think major hurricanes are notable. Though they are somewhat rare, there are, on a long term average, two of them per year, and since 1995 there has been an average of 3.7 per year. Though there are clear sources for what were Cat. 4 hurricanes, as Jdorje mentioned above, those same sources could be used to create List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A. There would be no need to make such a list. By contrast, the tropical cyclone rainfall by country is very much notable, as it very much so lists the top 10. At the same time, there would be no need to have an article on the 11th through 20th greatest tropical cyclone rainfall by country. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • DR, the notability "guideline" (not rule) is to be applied to *topics* not to individual bits of data; while I'm not sure which rainfall lists you refer to (
                    List of Atlantic hurricanes and List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and maybe List of major Atlantic hurricanes would be justified, that does not imply that a Category 4 list is. Again, notability applies to *topics* and the topic here is the list itself. Seddon, I'm fairly sure by the notability guideline almost every hurricane with a TCR will qualify as notable enough for a separate article, though common sense (and wikiproject guidelines) limits the creation of so many stub articles. Hink, rarity is still not a criteria for notability, nor is commonness a criteria for non-notability, and I think arguing based on that isn't going to get us far. That said, I am through arguing on this topic and if the decision is to keep (as it seems to be based on people liking the article, and despite its non-notability) then I'll instead turn my efforts in getting JC to fix it. — jdorje (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
                    ]

Keep I don't have any problems with this list, notable and well sourced.--JForget 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable subject within Wikipedia guidelines. It meets WP:LIST and is relevant notable and verifiable information Pilotbob (talk) 04:42, 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; various speedy deletion criteria also apply. Deleted as

Rego's Graphic Design

Rego's Graphic Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed by creator without explanation. Non-notable company, zero information other than links to website. Blatant advertising Tx17777 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as practically empty. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Practically no content. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable company, and an ad. Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Additionally, all 9 non-wiki ghits are myspace pages; no hits in google news. This is certainly a type of article I'd expect to find ghits for if it was notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G11 - 52 Pickup (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A1 or A7 - Ii doesn't look like an ad to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 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 delete.--

Krystie McCauley

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

no assertion of notability per

• Weak keep. The notability assertion was hidden deep at the bottom of the article. I fixed it and wrote an adequate lead section. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – One reference does not make a star. I could not even find that one Shoessss |  Chat  13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The AfD question is whether she is notable, not whether the article asserts that she is. It's often hard with reporters, writers, academics, etc., because they are notable for what they say, not who they are. However, I could not dig up anything on this person after a whole bunch of google searches. It doesn't help that the article title and the article itself spell her name differently. Offline sources are just fine, but without looking at them I have no way to know if they support notability. Quite possibly she is simply not notable even if the magazine perhaps is. Probably should be deleted unless we can get a clear source. 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

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

talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I've looked at (and reformatted) the refs provided in the article. As a result I have removed one dead link, and one that simply lists "every former LI News Tonight intern, student aid and teaching assistant…" which was being used to assert that she was a news reporter. Also split the last sentence as the refs don't mention McCauley at all. I haven't done any further searches - I trust Wikidemo.  —SMALLJIM  22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single reference does not a notable subject make. There's basically confirmation that she's a reporter in the references, and that's it for notability. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:49, 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 redirected - we already have an article on this topic at

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

)

Non-notable game, no claims of notability, no reliable sources, this article has had several editors so I didn't list it for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sounds like something made up in school one day. The reference cited is to a genuine card game, but it doesn't resemble the one described in the article, which sounds more like Mornington Crescent than anything else. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent variation on
  WP:MADEUP in school one day. <eleland/talkedits> 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:MADEUP. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:27, 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. Obvious

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

)

Muzzaker Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Redirect No citations, as the reference is broken. Also per nom's reasons. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't mind a redirect, but I think this should be relisted for more discussion. The point is, an article like this is just not acceptable per
  WP:BLP. Calling anyone a criminal without references to reliable sources is unacceptable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:54, 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.

Prescott ellison

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

Lots of superlatives here, but I can't find anything with a reliable source which shows notability. He does have an artistdirect entry, but all it does is list the albums he was a session drummer on, there's no text. There's a page for him at allmusic.com, but that's even less meaningful than the artistdirect page. He does seem to have quite the resume as a session drummer, but I can't find anything about him that's reliable. There's also another Prescott Ellison, which skews the number of google hits. The other one bills himself as the "blind black republican", so if you remove "republican" from the Google search, you get 59 hits, none of them reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:V. Grandiose claims of having worked with the famous, but nothing to back those statements up.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  discuss my greatness 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No references to back up claims. Hence, unreferenced claims, hence,
  WP:NOTABILITY failure. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:30, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Illini Club of Will County

The Illini Club of Will County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a college booster club in one region of Illinois, but doesn't appear to be especially notable. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am a UIUC alum, and clubs like this are local in focus.. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website (though an AfD starting today is really kicking a dog when its down!) LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Er... what is today? I didn't mean to kick any Illinois dogs. Lawrence Cohen 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think LonelyBeacon was referring to the Illini's less-than-successful performance in yesterday's Rose Bowl. Deor (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That went right over my head, I barely watch college football. Sorry, Beacon. Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kiddin' LC .... you're OK! LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:LOCAL. Of course these exist, they would need to do something exceptional to be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per Dhartung. At least Michigan brought some glory to the Big Ten =P. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a college booster club would have to be pretty darn special to be notable. Besides, the article is crap, complete with a list of members and an email address(!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 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 Redirect to

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

)

• Delete - I am a fan of the shows. The article even states that there is essentially no real world connection to be made. It is an extremely minor point in the universe, and hardly deserving of an entire article. Maybe a redirect to Star Trek technobabble, if an article exists. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

Treknobabble. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  Treknobabble, as this doesn't need it's own article. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - per above. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given its occasional use in other franchises,
  Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton would probably be a better redirect destination. --EEMIV (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - Not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I support restoring the redirect to
  Narutocruft; It might even make FA status! — TheBilly^(Talk) 20:29, 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 No Consensus to delete. Merging or even redirecting to a list can be done without an AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tanner

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

)

Did you do any research at all into this subject? After all you made the same assertion about

Nights (video game character).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep, this is probably sourceable. Though most adults shun the show you cannot imagine its popularity among kids of tween age and younger (maybe finally waning). More pertinently Saget has made a career point of turning his back on the character.[5] --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add real-world context, of which there appears to be a fair amount in a brief perusal of Google News results. JavaTenor (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Article tagged stub so its need of expansion is known to the project the article falls under. As the article includes references in pop culture, his notability is there, it just needs to be referenced.
  IrishLass (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Marvellously uncontaminated by real world content or assertion of notability. Better covered at the character list. Eusebeus (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails
  notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep Lead character in a notable series. This Google News Archive search shows 189 sources of "real world Content" that addresses the character. Once additional sources are added, I am willing to consider upgrading my vote. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Alan's unintentional "commentary" above, whilst disagreeing with his !vote: his indolent google archive search, whilst perhaps providing "real world content", fails to provide the kind of real world content that can stand on its own without requiring qualifying quotation marks around it. Yes, google archive confirms that Bob Saget did indeed play Dan Tanner. Wikipedia notability policies, however, require slightly greater assertion of notability (pace Bob Saget). Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am deeply moved by the spectacularly hypocritical !vote cast by Eu that ignores assertions of notability and ample real world content, and justifies deletion by asserting that a merge should be the end result. Hard to tell though if the customary hypocrisy and haughtiness is intentional, or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alan, I'm touched that you responded, since I know you normally like to stay above the fray and rarely remonstrate with those with whom you disagree. In that spirit, allow me to apologise unreservedly for my hypocrisy, spectacularly as it has proven to flourish on this occasion, and by way of remorse note that, you are, as always, right; that indeed 189 "sources" which tell us - 189 times ! - that Danny Tanner was portrayed by Bob Saget more than satisfy our notability guidelines and create ample need for this important cultural landmark to be treated with the fullness of encyclopedic rigour. My haughtiness must have, again, blinded me to the extraordinary irresistibility of your argument and no less the fullness of your evidence. A chastened Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am deeply touched that Eusebeus, the patron saint of unprincipled deletionism, has been stirred from his customary sloth, best demonstrated by his traditional inability to type anything more than the letters "nn" as an excuse for deletion of an article, marvelously uncontaminated by even the faintest awareness of Wikipedia policy or evidence of having read the articles in question that fail his latest arbitrary whim. Eusebeus has come out of his torpor long enough to spew his traditional venom in response to a rather clearly defined vote and then hypocritically blame others for failing "to stay above the fray". Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I vote get a room. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  List of Full House characters due to the lack of encyclopedic demonstration of notability (although it's possible to establish notability I guess, but this will take time). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Eusebeus and Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources providing real world context. Significant coverage refers to the amount of usable information, not the number of times the same information was published. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete every character article for any television, movies, and book that exists on Wikipedia. In a country where 99% of households have at least one television [6] television and it's programs and characters are real world. Something that is part of the average persons daily life is real world. Danny Tanner was iconic to the point that Bob Saget desperately tried to shake the image with raunchy stand up routines. The show has been off the air for years and people still know the character, people in the real world. I've thought it before, and I'll say it now, Wikipedia would do well to have a fiction section for television, movies, and books that could house these types of articles. But if you are going to target them one by one, you should go after them all not just one at a time. And don't feel the need to lecture me for my opinion (which happens often when someone disagrees with the voting or why someone voted the way they did). You'll not change my vote and that isn't what this is about. It's my opinion on an article and a lecture isn't going to change my vote. Thank you.KellyAna (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    WP:ALLORNOTHING. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • And your point? Did you bother to actually read what was written or not get past the first sentence? KellyAna (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not discussing every character here, we're discussing whether there needs to be a separate article for Danny Tanner. But you seemed to suggest the reasoning of
        WP:ALLORNOTHING, which isn't really helpful ("Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Again, did you read what I wrote or just the first line? Try reading it all. I'm moving on now, I've made my comments BOTH about the article in question and my general feelings about these nominations. If you have a problem with it, fine, but that is not my issue. I've commented on the article, that's what I'm required to do. KellyAna (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Replied on my talk page.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the
    =/\= | 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom and my above. —
  =/\= | 19:51, 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. No reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Douglass

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

Delete as an academic who does not seem more notable than average under the criteria of

• Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either on Google; 1. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't actually see any claim of notability in this article, unless it's the plug for his soon-to-be-published book... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam for his to-be-published book. --Crusio (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable church planner. The academic side is secondary. DGG (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His work as a church planter (n.b., not planner) is fine and good, but how does it make him notable? What reliable sources reported on that work? There is no indication here, and based on my searches and knowledge of pastors and academics in his and his seminary's denomination, I suspect it will be difficult to find any. I have nothing against the man. I just don't think he has met either
    WP:PROF. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - per DGG. Given Douglass' record of achievements, which is very strong, there are very likely to be multiple sufficient
  theologians, and are unlikely to be online or uncoverable by a Google search. We have not heard from any theologians in this AfD; there seems to be a dearth of highly qualified academic theologians participating in Wikipedia these days. - Neparis (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: On what basis do you rate his record "very strong"? This is pure and simple your judgment call, not verifiable information on his notability. Just because reliable sources may exist (about which I have my doubts, in this case) does not answer the charge of notability. If he is indeed so obscure as to have kept out of all academic and widely published sources, then perhaps he's not notable enough for the Wikipedia (yet). And, hey, I'm as much a qualified theologian as Essjay -- which is to say, how would you know if you had one? It's really up to any researcher, pedigreed or not, to prove the case. --Flex (talk/contribs) 05:53, 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 -

List of notable hotels in Hanoi

List of notable hotels in Hanoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simple directory of hotels.

Delete - this stuff belongs (maybe) in Wikitravel, not WP. Triwbe (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT. Not all of these hotels are notable enough for an article, it seems, anyway...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:44, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chobe

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

Taken from UrbanDictionary - it said so in the link at the bottom of the page. See also,

Yes. Yes, it was. –Deletion sensei

Thanks - though no reason was given in the edit summary for doing so :) Stephenb (Talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears my prod was also debated, the reason given: "Deleted warning: not necessary given nature of article and slang word it references". If they are contesting the article's deletion, then perhaps a merger, or just giving "Chobe" a mention in the Newbie article? Either way, Delete this one in question. ^Dlae│_here 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and while it's well beyond a dicdef, there are no reliable sources for this provided - appears to be a non-notable neologism with an original research piece written on it. Urban Dictionary as a source for Wikipedia articles? You've gotta be kidding me.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  WP:DICT, specifically, and I quote from the first line: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:NEO handles this. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above;
  WP:NEO takes care of it. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable niche neologism. Alliteration ftw ^_^ JuJube (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a re-post which I have previously speedied myself. Deb (talk) 18:26, 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. The content of the References section consists of images of supposed articles about this person, not the articles themselves, and as such are not

Whataboutadam

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

This has been speedied and recreated five times times (indeed, I speedily deleted once myself.) However, I think "interviewed by the Sunday Times" is enough of an assertion of importance to avoid speedy deletion.

• Delete possibly salt. It depends on one's interpretation of
  WP:N, but dispite the references given, I do not believe Notability is satisfied. -Verdatum (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I speedied it once because it provides no real references to notability; the only reliable one seems to be the Sunday Times, but the article can't hinge on one and only one source... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst I agree with you,

  WP:Speedy#A7 is "distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources" Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. Falls short of
  Chris Crocker, anyway... if there's more press coverage in future we could consider having an article on him, but not yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I got interviewed by the Chicago Tribune several times .... that does not qualify as notability. Though h i s is correct. Should more references come up later, then notability may be established for an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MoP's reasoning above. Also, I noticed that the links to the articles are in fact only scans of the printed articles - I'm not arguing the fact that they were made, however in the form they are currently presented, they are not reliable. The scans provide no information about which issue they are from, so a citation cannot be made for the printed article based on the scans. Searches for "Whataboutadam" and the article's title on the Sunday Times' site provide no hits either. If reliable sources in reliable formats can be provided, I may reconsider, but I still find the notability questionable and the article is presented as a vanity piece.
  a/c) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. He needs to be the subject of verifiable reliable sources. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthieeness (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• a video a fan of his didto one of his radio1 interveiws And on top of that hes had a few other radio one interveiws, but sadly he deleted the videos containing them.
• He has a steady audience of over 10,000 and here is proof, subscribers = audience

10,000 is a LOT for youtube

• On youtube he is #93 most subscribed (biggest audience) of all time [directors] and you can also see hat by clicking on his page.

Youtube is now literally the internet version of TV and almost as popular as TV Ruthieeness (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference is that TV programming has editorial oversight. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 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 and salt per

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

)

• Delete per nom. This is a nothing article at the moment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What is it? I have to go with the nom: when it comes out, then let it assert proper referenced notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, speedy perhaps, and salt. This is either the third or fourth time this article has come up for deletion one way or the other and still they don't get it. The game has no official confirmation, no reliable coverage, just some original research/synthesis involving some job descriptions on Jagex's site. There's a fansite link every time the article's recreated, quite possibly the repeated pushing of this article is a fansite trying to steal a march on its (future) rivals. If fansites do cause problems with this article when it is eventually created because of reliable sources, not in spite of them, I'd suggest linking
  Open Directory Project and removing any fansite listings. WP is not a highway for fansite traffic. Someone another (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

MechScape Is already protected, pretty sure there's been more than one creation there too. Someone another (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and
  WP:SALT per nom. The fansites are neither here nor there. RFerreira (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Protected Redirect to Jagex#Future Developments - The issue with MechScape is not of WP:CrystalBall so much as it is WP:Synth. It can verifiably be established that Jagex have invested in the term 'MechScape', seperately be verifiable that they have been working on a new futuristic MMORPG, and separately be verifiable that they have been hiring people to create vehicles and other such things. All this is related to Jagex and is suitable for that article, and it makes sense to add one and one together, especially considering that some sources who claim to have insider knowledge have stated that MechScape is the new MMORPG and there is little evidence to the contrary. However, drawing logical conclusions based on available evidence is not the role of Wikipedia. People who are looking for Mechscape and MechScape should be content with "Jagex#Future development", so I propose a protected redirect instead of a delete (as per WP:SALT). --RS Ren (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Protected Redirect per above. User:Krator (t c) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  WP:SALT per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per RS Ren --T-rex 03:58, 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 No consenus, defaulting to keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Moore (footballer)

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

This page has assertion of notability, but no references for it, and does not seem to have any "Google Hits" for it. Only decent hit was "Shawn Moore". No great notability shown. No hits with ' "Sean Moore" footballer Bohemian ' either. Admittedly eleven goals in a campaign is good, but not exceptional, or unique. Dreamafter ^⇔ 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Bohemian F.C. is an important and long standing league of Ireland club and so its players are notable, just as anyone who'd played for Manchester United in the 1930s would be notable. The player doesn't have to be exceptional or unique. I wonder if the nominator has bothered to look up the guidelines for footballers? Relying on google hits for someone who was active in their field 70 years ago is fatuous. Nick mallory (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would I find said "guidelines for footballers"? And just because the League is notable doesn't mean the players are notable. Dreamafter ^⇔ 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I doubt Irish premier division was a professional league in 1935, so the football guidelines just do not fit with it. My delete vote is strictly consequence of the current
  WP:N criterions, as the subject's only current source is a football match programme. --Angelo (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it was the highest league in Ireland at the time, so it's notable. The fact that it was amateur at that time is irrelevant. Rugby Union and Athletics were amateur until quite recently, that doesn't mean Herb Elliott gets the boot. Nick mallory (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the

a/c) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete - The player appears to meet the criteria specified in
  a/c) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I can't find anything in
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • True... but if someone was as notable as is claimed, wouldn't there be at least one on-line bit on him other than just Wikipedia? Dreamafter ^⇔ 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily for a footballer who was playing in the 1930s.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And however true that may be, sources also need to be
  a/c) 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I see no need to discriminate against a noteworthy 1930s ballplayer who played for a club which dates back to the 1890s. RFerreira (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not discriminating against it, if I was wouldn't I be nominating every other player too? This one just doesn't show references to prove any of what is claimed. Dreamafter ^⇔ 18:40, 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. Nothing sourced to merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Albania

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

Unnecessary article, as "Northern Albania" is not an established subdivision of

• Merge anything useful into the Albania article, and redirect or delete depending on whether this might be a relevant search term. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a very new article with very little content, and I see nothing that's not either already said (and better) in Albania, or nationalist ranting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's where that "useful" bit comes in, hm? Not useful? Delete away. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. I believe this is indeed redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article claims that northern Albania is the northern part of Albania, which should surprise nobody, and then makes various unsourced claims that bits of other countries should be included. Balkan articles being the minefields they always are, this one should be dealt with rapidly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: short, unreferenced, and also, seems to be a little nonsense. this article should be QVFD-d at the start. --Drhlajos (talk) 18:19, 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, the temperature's

Dragon Ball FO

Dragon Ball FO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - Original reserch for a possible Manga cartoon that has cited the name of Kakusho Sitori which does not come up with any hits. There is no citation or reference to an interview which apparently confirms that this anime will be created at the end of 2008. The whole article is completely against
  WP:V. Pmedema (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Kakusho Sitori is not a writer, he works at Bird Studios. And it was on a Japanese TV channel, so its currently very hard to get correct references. In a few days, it should be everywhere on the net because of Dragonballs massive fanbase. DrVonDre (talk)

  Then dont worry, we will recreate the article then. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per
  WP:NOR, as it fails to cite any sources at all. Although it would be exciting if it turns to be true. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, I thought Wikipedia enjoyed being the first with such info... Give it a month. It will be EVERYWHERE when you search Google. -DrVonDre —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you read

WP:CITE before any further contribuion. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I wanted to say "Merge" but since a Google search revealed nothing, It's not even worth a redirect barring a verifiable source. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not sourced at all. Plus,
  it really is rabbit season. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until a published third-party source is found to
  verify the content. --Farix (Talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But this is from reliable sources, like Japanese tv. Ask every japanese anime fan, and they can verify this! Besides, why would Toriyamas assistent talk about a series that dont exist? If you let this stay open, it will be noticed and someone will bring up the evidence. I am already fighting a hard fight to get the name of the channel on LimiWire and stuff, because im a DBZ fanatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is that you are referring to "some interview on Japanese TV",' however, you have not specified the time, date, channel, or program the interview was conducted. That is like adding information to an article based on "some book" without giving the title of the book, when the book was written, or the author the book. "Some interview" simply can't be taken as a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  verify its content. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:HOAX due to complete lack of reliable sources and the series not actually appearing. If/When its released and actually is noted in a reliable source (like ANN), no prejudice for recreation. Collectonian (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I would have to agree, if this had any real merit, ANN would have reported it by now. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sephiroth BCR. (Duane543 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete this now. DesireCampbell (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This deletion is maximum. Any announcement of further Dragon Ball would be a major anime-media event; chalk up another wannabe
  wiki-hoax. Papacha (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Don't delete This is true, and i finally got the proofs from one who edited the page... The true guy who got interviewed was Yamada Tarō, search and see the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs)

• Comment Swearing up and down that it is true isn't helping your case. We need solid proof and you so far haven't provided it. --Farix (Talk) 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People made similar claims regarding Dragon Ball AF, but to date I have never seen anything on that. It might be that someone supplied you with false info. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I did a search for "Yamada Tarō" and "Dragon Ball FO" and got nothing. I suspect this might be
  WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry for all the acronyms. Lankiveil (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete, per above. Simply unverifiable. -- RattleMan 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Farix and Papacha are right--if this had even a shadow of a substance, the anime news outlets would be All Over It, and I'm not seeing a twitch. Without anything to more substantiate it, the subject is
  unverified. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Let it
  snow... Jauerback (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note Yamada Tarou is the Japanese equivalent of John Doe. JuJube (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Let's write the article when there's more there. --
  4 January 2008
  (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [non-admin closure][reply]

The result was Delete, non-admin closure overturned. The standard of multiple independent sources has not been met by the sources presented. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Professional Basketball League (2007-)

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

)

• Delete I think this one's a no-brainer. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability established by this news report, as well as [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Usbasket isn't a
  WP:N. Secret ^account 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Usbasket is most definitely an independent source, and I see nothing to indicate that it isn't reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usbasket covers any basketball league, and it's blog coverage in which sometimes the league themselves add the info, far from reliable or independent, the rest talks about the local teams in the local newspaper, nothing about the league in general. Secret ^account 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though the league is currently lacking in news reports, its seems logical to keep it around until the season starts to see if its for real. If the ABA merits inclusion, the NPBL should as well.
  ABAsite 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I concur with above statements. Plus with the Elmira nee Corning Bulldogs joining the league from the ABA, that has to give it a measure of credibility such as it is. If anything the page needs an overhaul, but not a deletion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what about the sourcing concerns I mentioned, if it's lacking in news reports, or any time of
    Reliable sourcing, it should not have an article. Secret ^account 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • They do, however, acknowledge the existance of the league. Perhaps until the season starts, it would be reasonable to list teams that are confirmed and teams that are proposed, per the NPBL website. The Eastern Basketball Alliance has its own wikipedia entry and this league seems to be making an attempt to go above that. I do however, believe an overhaul would be reasonable.
      ABAsite 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.146.140.192 (talk) [reply
      ]

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

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

Aaron Burns

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

Non-notable footballer - never played for either of the professional clubs on his CV - highest playing standard at senior level appears to the the Icelandic 3rd level. Previous Prod (months ago) removed because "Playing for Manchester United is notable", but he only ever appeared in their reserve side. fchd (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Fails
  WP:BIO and the only source / reference seems to be pretty much blank. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:BIO, that's all to say. --Angelo (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Idem -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete thi is a NN biography. --Stormbay (talk) 23:37, 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. The

Leila Backman Shull

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

Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As rare as I suppose it is to live to that age, the other supercentenarians I looked at all seem to have something more notable - though, for example, Marcella Humphrey is an exception I came across. -- alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You may be new, but per
  reasons for deletion, failing to meet a relevant notability guideline is definitely a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. She will be the new entry on the state age record-holders for South Carolina. If you delete it, then you have a link on that table that goes nowhere. If the fact that she appears on the table as a record-holder is not enough to keep her as an article...then the table is not important enough for keeping either.24.144.29.117 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't you explain
    this for me? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment
  boy00 @169, i.e. 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per the consensus reached re List of American supercentenarians and other national articles, articles should exist for individuals where there is sufficient independent evidence to support the >109 claim, as is the case here. While notability is established in this case, if there were any issues regarding individual notability, the article should be merge/redirected to the parent article List of American supercentenarians. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. As per the anonymous user, and she has more than enough inline references plus reaching age 113 is notable in itself too though. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - about the only thing said about her is that she lived a long time. Only references refer to her death - if she were notable enough for an article, you would have thought there would be multiple references while she was alive. And being the record-holder for an individual American state - means very little. If she was the National record holder, yes fair enough, but just South Carolina - no. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just simply not true, and proof is here. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough - relevant bit of my statement above struck. Still can't see her being close to passing the bar of notability though*. - fchd (talk) 14:17, 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, Rt. 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. She's a record holder within a US state for her age, which should be notable. I don't know if this will or can ever be expanded to a decent size, though, given the lack of sources that are likely to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:29, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hueneme High School

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

Non notable high school in california. No major events have occured at the school and no major recognition has been given it aside from the existence of some somewhat notable former students (as most schools have). Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I know it's not official policy, but secondary school tend to be notable in nature.
  talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Not to start any arguments but on what basis is that? I fail to see any rationale for why a secondary school, without sources that show it as notable due to recognition, controversy, etc to be any more notable than any other number of bands, companies, nonprofits, and so on that fail

WP:N.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:OUTCOMES...which you can verify for yourself here...and here. --Smashville^BONK! 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Outcomes illustrates nothing other than that most of these AFDs never reach consensus. That's a far cry from tending to be notable in nature. Honestly its just another variation of

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other articles of similar topic have passed/failed/stalled in their AFDs doesn't provide much of a bearing on this one, and certainly NOT on notability. Notability is established by looking at an article and what kind of recognition it receives/warrants.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you really go through all 11,000 of them that quickly? The fact of the matter is that if you even go back for the year of 2007...you most likely won't find one that was deleted on AfD (I went back to MayAugust when I was researching before). So...yes, it does matter if a consensus has been established. It's not

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it's a consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't take any level of tedium to see that a massive portion of these AFDs (seems to be most of them, and

WP:OUTCOMES seems to agree) just die. That's NOT consensus. You can't show consensus without establishing a level of agreement between editors. Last time I checked inaction is not akin to agreeing on a cource of action. Its anything from apathy to laziness to simply being unaware of a situation.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reluctant keep. "Reluctant" because this article is one of those select few that suck up time and energy better spent elsewhere, reverting the permanent re-addition of
  iridescent 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notability is not established beyond alumni, which is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Find me a independent resource to establish notability and I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Oni Ookami Alfador and the idea that we should only be deleting things were notability is unlikely, not just that it hasn't appeared yet. It is very likely that any given High School is notable for something. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personally I think most of these high schools should be deleted, but it seems the consensus is that they are notable while elementary and middle schools are not. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Beyond the 'high schools are inherently notable' argument which I ascribe to, there is additional notability from the fact that the record for most rushing yards in an American football game was held by a player playing for this school.
  matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Alumni list now sourced. If an institution produces multiple notable alumni, there certainly is something to be said about it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary schools are always notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the SF Chronicle article and sourcing of 4 alumni (each notable enough to have their own entry) there's enough secondary sourcing to meet notability requirements, both general and the latest proposal for a school specific guideline. Also with an urban school with 2000+ students I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to presume there's more sources available.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Partial solution to rampant deletionism. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This school easily meets
  WP:N and our standards for verifiability. RFerreira (talk) 05:58, 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 no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brimley Road

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

Non-notable road in Toronto. Article reads like a page from a tourism pamphlet. No historical relevance. Suttungr (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be one in a series of Toronto roads articles. think we should let the creators run with the concept without chipping away at its constituent parts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no assertion of notability about this particular road in the article. Mh29255 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most city streets are not notable, and this article doesn't do anything to assert that it is. It also lacks any references. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are reliable sources that mention Brimley Road, they are trivial mentions not about the road itself. All the content falls under the scope of other articles on Toronto neighbourhoods and transportation. However, I'm pretty sure that it used to be a concession road, and there's no doubt that it's major in bordering several neighbourhoods. –Pomte 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article pushes that this is street is more important than any other street in Toronto or the surrounding areas, nor can I find anything in 20 minutes of digging around the internet. Unless someone can find something I missed that makes this one special, I'd say it has to go.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's noting notable about this street for Wikipedia standards. --
  talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This entry will be worked upon. There is access to
  Highway 401, and is a major part of Scarborough's Town Centre. Dumping this entry at this time is anal. Bacl-presby (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Sorry, major arterials are not notable. Many roads have access to
  Highway 401 and are a part of Scarborough's Town Centre. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Highway 401 is a controlled access freeway, which by definition and intent means very few roads have direct access to it. Brimley is interchange #380 (see
    List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)). 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Unlikely to be a
  WP:50k road, and no other indications of notability. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - WP:50k is a userfied essay, not a policy or even a guideline. 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I know that - it's my userfied essay, and as such is the standard I use to decide whether I regard something as notable enough to be kept. I repeat - this ain't a
      WP:50k road. Unless other notability can be found for it, it shouldn't have an article here. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - Brimley is formally designated by Toronto as a major arterial (at least the Finch-Eglinton portion, covering the 401 interchange) [11]. This designation has formal legal and operational implications, rather than being a subjective notion. ([12], etc). That desgination plus vehicle volume (32000/day) is significant and is now added to the article. Besides, hasn't deletionism gone too far? 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? Major arterials are not notable for Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - seems notable based on comments. It needs sources, though, and the "things to do" tourist information should either be deleted or put into some narrative fashion and made more encyclopedic, and sourced as well. Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Non-trivial news coverage of some incidents added and cited. As an intercity road between Toronto and Markham (as indicated, a major arterial with substantial traffic volume), it has notability and function for the same reasons as
  Woodbine Avenue which was unanimously restored at Deletion Review. Dl2000 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - looking at it in context of List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto, I'm sure that this road has plenty of Cites. The question is, are they still available, or have relevant newspapers all rotted away to dust. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yonge St? Notable. Bloor St? Notable. Brimley Rd? I don't think so. A road that goes nowhere in the middle of nowhere. Atrian (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "middle of nowhere"? Scarborough is a well-populated area of Toronto, the largest city in Canada. This road goes right through this area, and at least three notable attractions are along its length. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well sourced and of interest to road and local history buffs. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Looking at it, my feeling is that this article is capable of acquiring verifiable references, as per Exit2DOS2000 above. The article does need work, but that isn't really a deletion argument and in this case I feel the road is notable. SorryGuy  Talk  09:02, 2 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, Phoenix-wiki 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree with the notion that this "reads like a page from a tourism pamphlet. No historical relevance." (the reason we are having this "debate"). If this was even a problem to begin with, it's certainly been corrected by now. And of course, the "non-notable" thing has been refuted. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure we should be keeping roads at all, but if so, this one seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to have been greatly improved since nomination, note that several references use the road in the title of articles, so it appears to have multiple nontrivial resources. Rigadoun (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has doubled in size since the nomination, so it definitely appears there is incentive to improve this article. There are sufficient sources to meet notability standards - while some of them are trivial, there are enough direct mentions to make this acceptable.
  a/c) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable at all. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Oppose to Malinaccier, Brimley Road is a very notable road in Toronto. Filled with cultural diversity and landmarks, this road is highly notable.
  talk) 18:39, 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) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Foster

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

Is this a notable person or a vanity page ? thisisace (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I hate to denigrate limb-deficient Eagle Scouts, but the only verifiable source is the minutes of a single City Council meeting. His claim to fame seems to be writing for the Amputee Coalition of America, but that organization's article doesn't include any references either.Kww (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nice accomplishments, but I don't see the
  notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I tried multiple searches as an author and Egle Scout, but did not turn up any viable independent reference. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to fail
  WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Cannot be verified. Malinaccier (talk) 00:31, 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 per

The Global Mafia

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

I was going to leave this as a speedy deletion under criteria A7 (web-based content with no assertion of importance), but thought it better to have it discussed here first. I've found it difficult to find coverage for this game due to the title getting a lot of unrelated ghits. Narrowing it down to "The Global Mafia" MMORPG returns 5 hits, none of which help with

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete I couldn't find anything that met wp:rs as well.
  talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I could find nothing either. It sounds intriguing asa concept, but
  WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete A7, obviously not notable and you shouldn't have been so hasty first time round.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:12, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Money and Karl Kash

C-Money and Karl Kash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Only ref is a student newsletter. thisisace (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. No other references and does not meet
  WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - doesn't meet
  WP:MUSIC with two self-released albums and minimal independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 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 delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Cognition

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

The article is very weak on assertion of the subject's notability. It has been a year from first being written, and no attempts of expanding on the subject's notability was made. Emana (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm pretty sure any attempt to expand the assertion of notability would fail. All search results seem to be directory listings and the signature lines from forum posts.Kww (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't seem to have any independent references to indicate notability, and thus doesn't appear to meet
  WP:CORP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 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. A slim (or "shaky") consensus. Instances of usage of the term are not really enough to sustain an article. Complete lack of

Shake (cannabis)

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

The article cites no sources and references a slang term that is not by itself notable. To use an example:

• Weak to moderate keep I found it used at http://www.wamm.org/howtouse.htm and plenty of places that probably won't pass wp:rs, but this is a pretty old term (don't ask how I know....) and has survived the test of time. It is used as a semi-legal term (http://peterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=824113&auth=GALEN+EAGLE and http://cannabismd.org/reports/rosenthal10.php) as a description for a type of marijuana in more than a few legal and medical cases. I am sure it has a fair amount of cultural references in movies and such, although finding them might be difficult as it likely isn't the main theme of any. At worst, move to wikictionary. Personally, I would say recruit someone to clean it up, which is a reason to improve instead of delete. The references to potentcy of the different kinds of shake look like original research but could easily be removed.
  talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree with your proposal to move it to wiktionary, and your points above. Zenwhat (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I agree that this may possibly serve as a "dictionary definition", I do not have any opinion on the move to Wiktionary because I do not know what their standards are there. For Wikipedia this does not meet
  WP:V at all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Either Merge of Delete - per
  WP:DICT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral It's a load of original research at the moment, but as pointed out by Pharmboy this term has been used to describe this phenomenon in possibly reliable sources, so I dunno... it's beyond a dicdef though, that's for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it seems this is more a problem with the current status of an article vs what the article really is about. If the article is not up to quality standards it should be tagged and edited to become proper, not deleted. Also, Wikipedia to my understanding is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge and any encyclopedia specifically on Marijuana consumption would certainly include an article on shake. Furthermore, dictionary definitions are short and this article is already a page long. Even if this article does have some specific problems that the Wiki process is supposed to correct over time I believe that deleting this article would lower the overall quality of Wikipedia and move it away from it's larger focus as a whole to share the sum of human knowledge. :wq Triddle (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from

• Comment I want to point out that the use of the term in many court cases alone is likely enough to be considered notable, as it is used as a LEGAL term. The article doesn't properly document this, but the links above would be potential citations, and many more can be found.
  talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Article as it is is
  articles on neologisms should generally be avoided. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply
  ]
• very weak keep Badly needs referencing to reliable sources, reads very much like original research - authors must have material which they used for reference which they should share - transcripts of specific court cases as Pharmboy suggests, and even drug culture publications would be acceptable for an article of this nature. Question is, can the authors motivate themselves to finish the job? Riversider2008 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - from the huge amount of the info and google searches the topic seems notable. The article is interesting in itself. Still, as I do not have bandwidth to do real research about cannabis culture and improve the article once I have sources, and the article in current stage (although informative) is a bit ungrounded, I am pretty weak in my vote. Pundit|utter 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the entire article is completely unsourced, and has been outstanding as such for at least 13+ months now. There is nothing to salvage here. RFerreira (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This topic is not notable enough for an own article. Shake isn't a cannabis product or preparation but drawdown. --mms (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a redirect to cannabis Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:03, 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. Hut 8.5 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fletcher

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

NN vanity page mainly edited by the subject, a recent deletion request was moved by

• Delete - Only films are NN, and there is no other assertion of notability. If he is on the rise, then he warrants an article when he has risen; not before. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. LB is right. Malinaccier (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Vanity page, evident lack of notability. --
  Old Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. --Lockley (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest this article be ammended so to comply? Cheers. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will open with two suggestions: the first is: if you are the Robert Fletcher named in the article, you need to be very careful about what information you add to this article, as it could violate
  WP:COI
  . I would check that out.

Most importantly, you need to include references from reputable, neutral, third party source to support what is being asserted. That is, if you were the subject of a newspaper article or a magazine article. Definitely read

WP:V to get an idea. Keep in mind: most blogs will not be accepted under this policy. This part is perhaps the most critical, because the entire argument behind the deletion of this article is the notability of the subject. Notability is confirmed by verification. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I couldn't find any outside sources asserting notability. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and Keep - I agree that this article lacks references but I am not sure it should be removed. Firstly, I'm aware that the Gordon Ramsay video, in particularly, is popular, (particularly in American fraternities). Whatever you may think of parody's, it is - amazingly - the only one of Gordon Ramsay on youtube which is somewhat notable in itself! Secondly, the article mentions the elderly woman in one of his films (grandma or nan?) as one of the oldest people to act in youtube which is notable but unreferenced on any other website. The one saving grace is that, I have heard of both The Handmedowns and Mr.Ben, both bands mentioned on the page, the latter particularly notable. The former referenced in the Bournemouth Wire where having myself performed in Southampton recognize, but alas, I cannot help with a reference for that as the Bournemouth Wire does not posess an archive!

Robert was placed on the Bournemouth alumni which is notable. I think the article is a little self-promoting given that the user has made most of the contributions however, I consider the Gordon Ramsay video notable and the individual seems promising. Of course, view of 'promising' is subjective. I recall similar conflicts of opinion regarding many other youtube performers, especially Terra Naomi whom had a page before she had a record deal. In my opinion, it's a bit of a grey area so far as youtube peformers are concerned and as such needs further consideration, particularly by bobbyfletch85. Carkypants (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "notable video", and if we are going to start creating articles for university alumni, well, I'd qualify for one. Neither of the myspace bands are notable either.

talk) 20:11, 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. KrakatoaKatie 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinap

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

WP:NEO issues, and wikipedia is not a dictionary

• Delete or
  WP:USERFY since it's an little personal essay with no real meaning beyond wikipedia culture. Yngvarr 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete. I second Yngvarrr's opinion, but we could be it an essay or something as well.
  discuss my greatness 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep I've seen it used before, but this is simply the first time it's been codified. An essay on the same subject would also be appropriate if not kept. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]