Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 21

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports car manufacturers

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

)

could be the first of a proliferation of arbitrary automotive lists, if the chief proponent has his way Andy Christ (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unhelpful list. Created (by me) when cleaning up the sports car article, since the list was popular in the sense that it was oft contributed to, but I was hoping this discussion would come along. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the only reason Andy Christ has nominated this list for deletion is that it does not include some of the "famous" manufacturers of sports cars because they have other activities and products. As can be seen in the edit history, the contributions by numerous editors have pared this list down to only the "companies that build (or built) only sports cars". They keep the list clean by removing non-specialist brands and the mainstream automakers.
• It is entirely speculative to describe that this list would give rise to "a proliferation of arbitrary automotive lists". Yes, I suggested to
  list of sports car manufacturers and to establish a new list of sports car makers that also make sedans, grand tourers, sport utility vehicles, and/or trucks, as well as having other business activities
  almost as a jest because he does not like that "popular" brands are not included in this one. Yet, it is quite evident that the efforts by a number of editors has limited the potential to expand this list. Its purpose is not to include every manufacturer that has ever produced a sports-type high-performance vehicles.
• The purpose of this list is to compile those enterprises that are (or were) developers and manufacturers of sports cars and as such, it should be helpful. It thus differentiates companies that devote efforts to sports cars, from those that serve other market segments or offer more popular designs or mass-market models -- that often produce more steady revenues. If this information is not helpful, then I agree -- delete this list! — CZmarlin (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't defined your criteria for inclusion or exclusion, except by including or excluding. What set of features differentiates a GT from a sports car? And how long must a company have made nothing but sports cars to be a sports car company? Clearly you have some personal definition for this list, but neither you nor any of the other active editors of this article have seen fit to share it with the rest of us. And who exactly are you helping? My first instinct is Delete, but I could also support expanding it and better-defining it, or merging it into a list of sports cars and better defining it as a section. Andy Christ (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it seems you were the one who decided how to limit this list, so it really does fall upon you to explain how and why. Andy Christ (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting at this point that

• Keep - in principle, this list seems extremely useful and appropriate as a navigational aid. It may be that some names are inappropriate or missing, but I see that as a reason to improve the list, not as a reason to delete the whole list. - Neparis (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: Could this not be better done as a category, rather than an article? Then the navigational aid element would still be there. 82.27.192.151 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It could, but I see categories and lists as complementary navigational tools, and I think it is often very useful to have both a list and a category representing the same set of articles. I find well-constructed lists slightly quicker and easier to use than navigating categories. - Neparis (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lists are not disencouraged on WP; they can do much more than categories. If there is adjustment needed, the people involved can do it. DGG (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 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 redirect per Exxolon, non-admin closure. Since the article was a substub there's no harm in this if everyone agrees it should be redirected - and a full article on this can be written if necessary by modifying the redirect.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep it off Records

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

)

Record label created and run by a notable band. No sources, was a speedy which I removed, but putting it to AfD for consensus instead. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Less Than Jake - If the band itself is notable and the record label isn't, I think we should redirect the page to "Less Than Jake". However, the title isn't properly named, so perhaps there should be another redirect page named "Sleep It Off Records" (as "it" and "off" are significant words in titling). — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close and Redirect to Less Than Jake - which was what I'd already done. AFDing an article this small with only a few edits which can easily be redirected to a main article is a complete waste of everyone's time. Exxolon (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Badr (Iran-Iraq War)

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

)

No references, failed speedy delete. Possibly non notable. Needs attention or deletion. CM (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I've added a ref in the article which should hold it up for now while there are no experts in Iraqi and Iranian history to expand it a bit more. I want to edit the article more but I don't like the nom's "on-demand cleanup" reasons (Needs attention or deletion). I won't be a tool for such a behavior. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I don't know you and had no intention of manipulating you or anybody else. Either the article improves or it should be deleted. Better to have no article than an unsourced article. CM (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- In agreement with the previous comment. (I'm in agreement in substance, but not in tone, that's a better way of putting it). AfD is not the place to go for article improvement, and I'm not sure how this would be non-notable.
  matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- looks like a major offensive; seems pretty notable. I agree that it needs referencing, though: Google Books shows some books that might be useful, but none of them have full enough previews online. Still, it seems clear that sources are available to someone willing to look. —Salmar ^(talk) 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Clearly a major operation in a major war, and so there shouldn't be any issue of notability at all. The article needs citations, but books have been written about the war, so the argument can't be made the the problem with citations is irremediable. I cannot find a plausible argument for deletion. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Delete. Then recreate with sources in it. The article has been created by a user who has close relations to sockpuppets and vandals in the past and is still haunted by it. He once tried to fake his very own RfA. Check it out and you'll find I'm right. Yoshaibo (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an article was created by a user who you happen to find questionable is hardly a valid deletion reason.

matt91486 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep -- Why exactly should this article be deleted? First of all no sources is not a reason to delete an article, and seconldy and most importantly, you see sources at the bottom of the page. Plus this was a major battle that was of importance in a major war. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Absolutely no reason to delete this article. It is well written and provides excellent information on the subject. It's tone is fairly neutral and shows nobodies point of few except for the neutral writers of it's online-sources. But I see there is nothing to worry; the majority of people here agrees with me and wants to keep it. Cheers! Ramtashaniku (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep it looks like an Himalayan avalanche. CM (talk) 22:09, 22 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. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Trinity

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

Non-notable fictional group/comic/game - there's no reliable sources that show the notability of any of these. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN, no sources available.
  Dorftrottel 10:06, January 22
  , 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Delta

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

This article is a splendid example of

Iota Delta is not at other university. It is a chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Inc at the University of Texas at Austin. There are a number of references that are not from the chapter's site; rather, those citations link to the fraternity's homepage as does the Kappa Alpha Psi wikipedia entry. Furthermore, this organization is not merely a club. It is a chartered chapter of an international fraternity as cited on the Fraternity's international website (reference 2). The beginning of the article may be a bit biased but the page is factual and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantDeath (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:ORG and the first two sentences of InstantDeath's comment. Individual chapters of national fraternities are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - nothing extraordinary about this particular chapter of a fraternity -- Whpq (talk) 10:24, 22 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. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alkonost (band)

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

Delete nn band article sourced to the band's webpage and Myspace; no third party RSes indicating that it meets

• Delete This one was tricky. Although they have several albums out, Google doesn't bring up any significant media or news outlet coverage on them.
  Galaxy 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:56, 24 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 (

Daniel Healy: Singer Songwriter

Daniel Healy: Singer Songwriter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article claims just enough notability to potentially get past A7, but this subject is not notable enough for an entry. The one reference (IMDB) shows only one small time acting gig, and "Daniel Healy" + singer on Google reveals less than 400 hits. Gromlakh (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted A7 (three times). JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 21 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 consensus here is that without violating the policies which state that

The War of the Ember

The War of the Ember (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Assuming the information on the page (and page

• "Please do not remove this page, it does give the infromation that the 15th book may not be called Guardians of Ga'Hoole: The War of the Ember, and there is a chance it will be called so, but in that time, the page will grow longer and with more information. Thank you androo123
• Delete unless there are more sources than these out there; at the moment it seems that nothing verifiable that can be said about the book other than its title, and that's already covered in
  WP:OR. Of course, the article can be recreated in future when there are some more concrete facts available. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes but it can be useful information soon, and why recreate it? It would be much simpler to keep it until it is actually said by the author that the 15th book is to be called other, then the article is to be deleted, if the article is kept, viewers may have an idea of what the 15th book is etc... androo123

• Great NEWS: According to users on owl fantasy...it is comfirmed there will be a 15th book called The War of the Ember http://www.owlpages.info/fantasy/viewtopic.php?t=3641&start=0&sid=181c6d7ea04f6ce333010aba67f37a06 androo123
• Delete - no reliable sources. And a web forum does not confirm anything. -- 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

• There is also a note of the author that she will write the book after or during the 14th book, IF YOU WANT TO SEE A COMFIMATION... http://www.kathrynlasky.com/ READ THE LAST PARAGRAPHAndroo123 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) so does this mean I get to remove the ugly banner on the page?[reply]

Reply - If you are referring to the AFD notice on the article, no you cannot remove it. It will be dealth with in due time when an admin closes this discussion with a decision. As for the confirmation from the author, all this essentially tells us is that she has decided on the name of the book. Period. I fail to see how that provides sufficient material to build an article. She hasn't even written the book yet, and there is not such anticipation of it that reliable sources such as newspapers have written about it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well this whole discussion was about just the name of the book, sure the information, such as the plot of the story, the cover-page, the ISBN etc... but we do know that in time the page will grow, just because there isn't that much information, doesn't mean we should delete the page, just to recreate it again in a month or so, just remove the deletion Template, and put a "This wikipage is a Fictional story stub". Androo123 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but three-fourth's of me thinks that an administrator should delete this page. It does contain information but it doesn't have anything to do with the plot. Most people who go on Wikipedia and see that page will want to know what it is about, not when it will come out or what book came before it or who wrote it. I would gladly agree with someone else if they give me two reasons. (Strix Struma (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My user page now has a rough copy for a complete article. It is not much (once we add external links etc..), but I think I gathered enough information for an article. Please check it out on my user page, write a comment about it on the discussion page please!!! Androo123 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Archive?I don't think we should continue editing this page until the book is out. Then we could collect better information. I could even put its contents in my sandbox then delete The War of the Ember and bring it back when the time is right. Swirlex (talk) 18:46, 27 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. Secret ^account 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A random list of conditions where the exact cause is still elusive. It is incomplete, and makes a rather odd distinction between ICD-10 recognised and non-recognised entities. I think this list is potentially endless and has been superseded by Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment any relationship to Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? How many of these articles, lists do we have? Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, the answer to your question is "way the heck too many!" (You can expect

original research problems soon.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete without sources, strict criteria for inclusion, and a clearer rationale for this list, it seems to be an indiscriminate list tinged with WP:OR flavourings. Wake me up if someone turns this into a state better than List of autoimmune diseases before this AfD closes. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any list of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies that is anywhere near comprehensive would have many, many thousands of entries. I don't see how such a list can be managed here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a crystal ball, so we should worry about that when the list gets to be in the thousands, it has about a dozen now. With more research I could probably double it. List of Popes and presidents will be in the thousands too ... eventually. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What use, in an encyclopedia, is a list that doesn't contain, or even aim to contain, so much as one percent of the items currently known to belong in the list category? Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is the list is sourced, anyone can add a category tag to an article, and it can be 100% inaccurate. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. You wouldn't delete a list of popes because not all the popes in a category are in that list yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for breaking into the middle of this discussion, but I actually think that having the sources included in the list makes the list more likely to provide inaccurate or outdated information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If there were 5000 popes, and The list of popes listed a half dozen, then I'd nominate it for deletion. Why? Because it's not "The list of popes" it's merely "An arbitrary smattering of a handful of Popes" and of no real value to an encyclopedia because it does not in any way accurately represent the topic it nominally represents, it would not serve honestly as a reference source of information because it does not attempt to cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An incomplete list is better than no list, so long as its marked as incomplete. An incomplete article can be improved. If every incomplete list was deleted we wouldn't have this reference work called Wikipedia, its just plain silly to delete something that can be fixed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you know of a gazillion others, God bless you and your medical insight. The Merck Manual lists just two, and of all the articles in Wikipedia less than a dozen others turned up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• is there a single member of
  List of ICD-9 codes 290-319: Mental disorders or Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD that has a known etiology? I doubt it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Can it be fixed? Do medical encyclopedias dichotomously classify etiologies as either "known" or "unknown"? I rather suspect they view knowledge of etiology as being more subtle, things are better understood or poorly understood, not known vs. unknown. Do medical encyclopedias have lists of all diseases of officially unknown etiology? or is this the sort of pseudo-medical article that exists in wikipedia alone, because the medical articles are written by a completely different class of people (non-experts) than write articles in medical encyclopedias (experts)? Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a medical encyclopedia, I don't get your argument. And to answer your question, yes they do. Two came from the Merck Manual on the chapter on just that topic. Please try to read the entire article, and actually use the references. Gut reactions are good, and fun. Careful research is better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help you understand this argument. Pete is trying to give you a chance to establish that this list is encyclopedic. Basically, if a normal encyclopedia has such a list, then Wikipedia should, too. Establishing the encyclopedic nature of the list would be a strong argument in favor of keeping it. However, normal encyclopedias don't have a list like this. So he asks, does a specifically medical encyclopedia have such a list? He's trying to give you another opportunity here. However, the answer appears to be no. Yes, the Merck Manual has three pages online that cover

• Delete It seems to be original research.
  Galaxy 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep of course. Ironically enough, it is original research to call an article "original research" without attempting to do some actual research on the Internet. I don't expect everyone to be an expert on medicine, but anyone can use Google to do a search. If the article needs references, there is a tag for that. It is also original research to guess that the number of diseases and syndromes of unknown etiology is endless, its not. There is a finite number of diseases and syndromes, and even fewer of unknown etiology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author of the article. I have tried to explain that the list is potentially endless, and better served with a category. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article provides sources to support the identifications, all of which satisfies the notability standard. What seems to appear to the unrefined palate as "WP:OR flavourings" is actually a delicate blend of lightly-roasted nutmeg and coriander, with just a hint of fennel, all of unknown etiology. As to the suggestion that a category could replace this article, lists and categories are intended to complement each other, and the grouping and sources provided here would be impossible in a category. As stated at WP:LIST, "Lists and categories are synergistic". Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but it is possible to cite sources for literally thousands of other medical conditions not presently included. Could you explain why a list is needed in addition to a category? JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't see how unknown causes ties these together in a useful way. JJL (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A relevant group of items, with adequate sourcing for the purpose. Clearer than a category. DGG (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources should be in the articles themselves, which can then be included in a category. I don't think this is "clearer" at all. For many conditions, several causes are proposed. To try to address these possible causes in the context of a list is almost completely impossible. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has sources. Annotated lists are different from categs. But it needs a proper intro sentence to link to main concepts. --mervyn (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response to DGG and Alansohn. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I have been thinking about this for several days, and I have come down firmly on the side of deletion. Here are my reasons:
  • First of all, because it's unimportant. I rate this as contributing as much useful content to an encyclopedia as a "List of state legislators some people are interested in" would. It does not meet any of the three required purposes named in the list policy, which are to provide organized information, to help with navigation, or to assist with development of the encyclopedia. It does not usefully organize information, it is not useful for navigation, and it is not used to improve the listed articles.
  • Second, because it's only known function is to provide a home for a favorite subject of Richard Arthur Norton. This list was basically written by a single editor, which strongly suggests that the Wikipedia community does not need it. The very nature of the list gives me concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations.
  • Third, because declaring that a condition has either a "known" and "unknown" etiology does not appropriately reflect the complexities of cause. To give one trivial example, is the cause of a simple cellulitis a bacteria, or is it skinning your knee when you fell down, or is it being distracted when you needed to be watching where you put your feet? (Do you really think that we should list ADHD as a cause of skinned knees?)
  • Fourth, because whether a cause is known or unknown can be disputed not just by disease but by individual cases. For example, some cases of chronic lymphocytic leukemia have known causes, and some cases of the same disease do not.
  • Fifth, because it contains no criteria for inclusion on the list, which means that it's going to be a POV magnet.
  • Sixth, because it makes no provision for handling legitimate (and illegitimate) scientific disputes about status.
  • Seventh, because the topic of the list does not meet the basic
    notability guideline
    . Has anyone ever seen an independent media source talk about diseases with unknown causes in general? Specific diseases with unknown or disputed causes turn up all the time, but the general topic never comes up.
  • Eighth, because the long-standing failure to develop the list has resulted in it being an indiscriminate collection of links, in violation of the WP:NOT policies. Richard Arthur Norton has had two years to address these issues and has not managed to do so. It is my opinion that he has not done so because the goals cannot be reasonably achieved. I think any such efforts are doomed, no matter how enthusiastic or willing its supporter may be.
  • Finally, because the list contributes no useful information to any average reader. Average readers -- the official audience according to WP policy -- are not looking for "stuff that could use some etiology-related research." Average readers are normally looking for information about specific diseases. The very little information on this page should be divided up onto the pages of the actual conditions.

Basically, I think that this is a useless partial collection of the names of a few diseases. If this list had been both substantially better developed (in ways that address the above-named deficiencies) and we could demonstrate that it addressed an actual average-reader need, I would support it, but my opinion is that this list is a waste of disk space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - for all of above reasons (no inclusion/exclusion criteria) and no degree of "unknown" specified - hence pityriasis rosea is included in the list which is generally believed to be related to a viral infection (the unknown bit is that not confirmed nor identified which virus), likewise sarcoidosis on the list is known to be an immunological reaction (what is unknown is what the initial trigger is & what the precise immune response is and how that then results in the clinical picture observed) - I am quite certain that sarcoid is not an obvious bacterial infection needing antibiotics, or a trauma needing surgery/bandages/just-rest, whereas medicine is clear that is is immunological and treats as such successfully with steroids & Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. At best a rename to List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain etiologies or List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain pathophysiology. David Ruben ^Talk 18:55, 27 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. Kurykh 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Boulevard

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

)

Not notable. City streets are not notable by themselves. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This article can be notable if the page has a significant expansion. I'm not sure about two sentences, however. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what
    notability means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Then I guess I have a different interpretation of notablity. Anyways, can the article stay if it's made longer? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I write a pretty long article about the major road that leads to my house, can it stay in Wikipedia? Your definition of notability does not matter - this is Wikipedia, where we deal in absolute truth. It's either notable or it's not. And by the Wikipedia standard, it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I don't know if this road is notable; how do you know this one is not? Do you have references? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you even read the link I put above? Lack of references makes it not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to say, it doesn't meet notability. It doesn't have any significant coverage, it's not famed. I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years come this spring, I know this city by heart. Perhaps if it were on the same street where Disneyland or another major theme park or attraction is, it'd stand a chance. We don't have articles for all the streets of every single city in Los Angeles county, either.
  Galaxy 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - how "non-notable" is it? Is it up to the
  WP:50k standard of the top 7 or 8 streets in Anaheim? If so, I'd sway towards a keep/expand. If not, then I see no real reason why it's here. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Is there a list of the Top 8 streets in Anaheim? How are the rankings determined? I suspect that this eventually turns into a state highway of some sort, and maybe it can be merged into that particular article Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe such a list exists. It's really hard to say, Los Angeles is so crowded that even the "small" cities down here all have at least 40,000 people in them. If such a list were compiled, it would take a ton of research and we'd all be tied (ex. #1 would have... 900,000 people, and then #10 would still be coming in at 820,000 or whatnot). The fact that an airport is on the same street makes it a little trickier.

Galaxy 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

WP;50k's an approximation, but it's a useful one - all I'm asking is this: if you were to name the 7 or 8 most important streets in Anaheim, is it likely this street would be on the list? If the answer is a definite yes, then keep and expand; if it's a definite no, and there's nothing else notable about it, then it should go. No-one's asking for individual lists to be drawn up for all cities, or for all the constituent parts of LA, but it should be pretty easy to estimate whether this street is big enough to qualify. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you weren't asking for lists for every single city. That was an example, but it still goes. I was just saying, if they made a list — even if it were just for the most famous streets — it would take a lot of work and be really tricky. I don't know how this will work. Sadly I have to admit that I live in Los Angeles County, not in Orange County. I've been to Orange County a few times and they're both really similar as they only sit next door to each other, but I'm still not too familiar with that city. We need to find someone who lives there.

Galaxy 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Just another unremarkable urban arterial. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As Los Angeles Street, this was part of
  Anaheim, but it's horribly written and incorrect (Fullerton Municipal Airport is nowhere near the road). --NE2 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails 50k - or redirect to
  US 101. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The redirect would probably be to
    SR 72, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --NE2 05:21, 24 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. There clearly is disagreement as to whether the necessary independent sources have been shown, but the article shouldn't be deleted under those circumstances. Hopefully people looking to see this article kept permanently will attempt to better source the article. CitiCat ^♫ 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The China Study

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

This article appears to fail WP's

The China Study is included on two category templates: Vegetarianism and Health in China.

This can be confirmed by clicking here:[[2]]. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by reliable secondary sources.--Boffob (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book is referenced in pretty much every vegan and vegetarian website and forum out there and it was a best seller. DieWeisseRose, I feel that your behavior is starting to be vindictive and personal for some reason that I don't understand. And what is wrong with including the criticism by Masterjohn that you and I wrote? Michael H 34 has recused himself concerning it, so let's put it in there and get rid of this "only one source" problem. It was published in a journal of

The Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization which apparently passes notability standards for Wikipaedia. I honestly don't see the problem. Just because you think a book that advocates veganism must be part of a fringe theory doesn't make it so. This book is notable and we can fix the "only one source" problem by simply adding to the article what is already written on the talk page.--Hraefen ^Talk 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hraefen, no doubt my

assuming good faith? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss the book in the Google news archive and Google books. We are not here to discuss whether the theory contained in the book is correct, just whether the book itself is notable. The article does, however, need extensive work to make it NPOV.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Phil Bridger, I looked at your Google results and I'm not so sure as you are. Notability requires "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." Some of the Google hits seem like fluff infomerical pieces devoid of criticism such as the KUAM piece, which seems to be inaccurate to boot. I did a separate search of the NYT and found no evidence that the Times ever reviewed the book let alone called "it the Grand Prix of Epidemiology." And in the first NYT item that pops up in your results--"Unhappy Meals"--The China Study merits exactly one parenthetical remark--15 words out of a 10,130 word article. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looking at the sources for this article they same and often tied to the author of the book. This makes the article seem less, than objective. If this article is to remain in the wikipedia it should contain more diverse sources. this search shows that there has been academic criticism of this study. I think the book may meet notability criteria hence I think we should keep the article-- but only if there is some clean-up and some other sources are added so the content is presented in a neutral manner. futurebird (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory Issues: I want to be reiterate that I don't consider veganism to be a "fringe theory" per se. The fringe theory issues come from the authors' advocacy of strict veganism in association with claims such as:

1. Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals.
2. The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages.

It is inappropriate for me to go into more detail about free radicals and anti-oxidants, but even these selected principles are not "fringe theory." I am reminded of a recent TV advertisement (U.S.) for a cancer center that flashes the word nutrition on the screen and shows the narrator walking past a fruit stand. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that “eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,” 5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

The "fringe theory" issue is related to the book's notability. According to the content guideline on

• Comment. You have just provided us with a source that shows the the book (which is what we should be discussing here, not the theory) is "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." A critical reference is just as valid for notability as an uncritical one.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not convinced that Wise Traditions is a "major publication" or a reliable source. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  China Project since the book's notability derives from its status as an output of that project. Add more information on the project's scientific status since that has a major bearing on how this book has been received. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is very interesting to me that The China Study is not included among the numerous publications listed on the China Project web site. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that The China Study is not included on the Cornell - Nutrition - China Project website, but no books are included on this website after the mid-1990s. The China Study was written just a few years ago by T. Colin Campbell, the Director of The China Project, along with his son. T. Colin Campbell's name appears often on the website, and in some respects, The China Study summarizes the career and thinking of this intelligent and knowledgable man. The website also includes the following:

"The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undetaken (sic) of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings." - The New York Times

"...the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made in China-and one of the largest epidemiological studies ever done anywhere." - Science Michael H 34 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

• Curiously, T. Colin Campbell is not listed as "Director of The China Project" on the China Project web site or on his Cornell bio. To my knowledge, his book and associated web site is the main source of the claim that he is the Director. It's not entirely clear that the China Project is even active any more. The two blurbs you quote above refer to the China Project, not the The China Study. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the author's bio:

Noteable Accomplishments:

Recently published the book titled: *The China Study. Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health (2005)*. This book is now a national best seller and has been translated into 10 languages and distribution shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, its sales continue to climb and some in the publishing world are suggesting that it is going to have a very long life of several years. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

That is just lovely, Michael H 34, but being a "best seller" is NOT one of the

notability criteria. It still remains to be shown that The China Study is notable. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

More evidence that The China Study is fringe: I have already noted that T. Colin Campbell's academic colleagues have, apparently, not seen fit to review the book in any scholarly journals. I just looked at Amazon.com and only two other books cite The China Study. One is a book about social nudity/body freedom/public nudity and the other is about "ethical eating" and is by an ethicist and an animal rights activist. In short, of all the health and nutrition books on Amazon.com and published since TCS came out in 2005 none of them cite TCS. I wonder why? Apparently, Chris Masterjohn isn't the only one who can spot bad science marketed in the guise of "Startling Implications". --DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not a scholarly book; it is written for the public. Why do you expect that the book would be reviewed in scholarly journals? I also suggest that it is inappropriate for you to imply that the book is based on bad science or that the authors principles are a fringe theory. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep per the earlier comments. --

Delete or merge - it may be an internet fad, but that doesn't solve the other problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A serious study, about 100 real citations to it in Google Scholar.DGG (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean 9 citations, and some of them seem quite dubious themselves. HerbClip^TM?--Boffob (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boffob, your search was severely limited. There are many citations that do not use the exact wording - The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Try searching for: "The China Study" Campbell - and Google Scholar will come up with 105 results, the majority of them relevant. See here --122.107.170.190 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is faulty. You're looking for any document with the string "the China Study" in it, which may or may not actually cite the book of this article. They may be referring to the China project itself, and not the conclusions or claims included in the China Study book. Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation. Google Scholar provides the actual number of citations for the book itself (at the very top of your search: "Cited by 9", you click that link and you get my search result) .--Boffob (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation." I disagree, Boffob. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep! It's not an internet fad or a fringe theory. It's written in an easy to read consumer version, but with lots of good references. If there is controversy ... include that ... but this book has changed lives and it has changed the practice (both private and professional) of more MD's than any other that I know of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiebel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with proviso. Right now, there is no assertion of notability per
  talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. If the current state of the article is unacceptable then you can edit it - that's the whole point of a wiki. As regards
  Phil Bridger (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wow, not at all convinced through those searches. What this does seem to indicate is that the author of the book has gone on a publicity seeking rampage, but he clearly hasn't had the level of success I would like to see from a self-promoter. Wikipedia has higher standards for
  talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: It is inappropriate to add a redirect to an article that is proposed for deletion. (When did "eat your vegetables" become a fringe theory?) Michael H 34 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

To be fair, this is a bit more than simply "eat your vegetables". It's more like "don't drink your milk".

talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment "eat your vegetables and don’t drink milk" is not a fringe theory either... it's called veganism. Millions of people do it. I would hope that people here can separate their personal feelings about veganism from the topic at hand: whether The China Study is notable or not. I realize that most people think that an entirely plant-based diet is extreme (I sure used to), but please do not let this belief color your judgement on this matter.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. has 10 times as many google hits as the China Project. Fringe or not is irrelevant -- is a more than notable social phenomenon. And this, from a non-vegan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please explain why you do not believe that this meets criterion 1 of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Criterion 1 is: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". The article includes no references other than the book itself. Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is just book burning. On the grounds mentioned any book covering a topic not previously covered elsewhere (or not published by a mainstream publisher apparently) can be removed allowing a gaps in the knowledge that Wikipedia is allowing the public to view. Freedom of expression is surely at issue here, those who wish to criticise the work have the right but removing it altogether for any reasons stated above is just indulging the critic's viewpoints and accepting their rights over both the author and those in favour of keeping it here where it is easily accessable to the world community. FastFonty (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is User:FastFonty's only edit. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "
  WP:BK says "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." So, to all of you 'keepers': Let's start seeing some reliable sources or this AfD should be closed as DELETE. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, there are many who have provided reasons that the article should be kept, and therefore your claim that "this AfD should be closed as delete" is contrary to Wikipedia's rule on consensus. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Yeah, and none of those "reasons," so far, satisfies the

notability criteria for books. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The reference to Wikipedia not being a soapbox bears no relation to this issue. The China Study article is neither propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, nor an opinion piece, nor self-promotion, nor advertising. It is an objective article about a celebrated work of literature. --122.107.170.190 (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I find it notable that a book written for the general public is cited in scholarly articles that are published in scholarly journals. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

On the contrary, I find the article smacks of propaganda, advocacy, and advertising. Michael H 34, what "scholarly articles" are you talking about? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is a best seller, and best sellers are notable, fringe theory or not. People will look up this book. It will deprive people of a valuable resource if the article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.79.67 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the

notability criteria for books. Hint: "best seller" isn't one of them. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep The book passes notability "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This book is a best seller and has been discussed in newspaper articles (yes), television documentaries (yes) and reviews (yes). The science in this book is better than that found in the Atkins Diet and it certainly deserves a page. lk (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you,lk. Of particular note, a book written for the general public was reviewed in Leonardo, a scholarly journal published by the MIT Press. The book was recommended to readers by the reviewer. In fact, the reviewer stated that "the book will have an impact." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Maurice Bucaille. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucailleism

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

)

Why preserve the article: It is a spinoff of

The relation between Islam and science

where one issue - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery (i.e. Bucailleism) - overwhelmed other issues such as the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. (This is not so much the case anymore as I trimmed the section on that issue following up the creation of the spinoff article.)

There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna) (i.e. Bucailleism). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. A google search for

"International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an" (one of the promoters of Bucailleism) yields 54,800 hits. It is not talked about much in the non-Muslim world, I suspect, because it is not taken seriously. —

talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (

ITAQALLAH 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• merge i think this could probably be merged somewhere but i dont know enough about the topic to say where. --neonwhite user page talk 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the Bucailleism article and confess to some frustration. It was created to answer Itaqallah's complaint that undue wieght was being given to criticism of Bucailleism - or what its supporters call "Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah". It is a very big issue in the Musilm world with many websites, best-selling books and international conferences, and deserves an article on wikipedia.

I asked the instigator of this complaint - Itaqallah - several days ago if he has any alternative title to the article and gotten no reply. --

talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't really have an alternative, because I believe most of what is encyclopedic can be covered elsewhere in the other articles we have on this topic.

ITAQALLAH 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete seems to contain unreliable sources and original research; no evidence of any notability of the term from reliable sources. Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the term in mentioned in Clinton Bennett’s book Muslims and Modernity: An Introduction to the Issues and Debates (Muslim Voices on the Qur'an chapter)[3] - an academic source. --RJMY (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a page in Bennett's book (p. 115). Section titled Bucaillism: the Qur'an as a scientific text. --RJMY (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If Bennett actually uses the term as standard, it would make it notable, as he is a leading specialist. -- who is presently lacking a WP article, despite many mainstream published works. DGG (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bennett does use the term (twice if I remember correctly), but not as standard. I'll check again.
    ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment, I need to know which sources actually use this term. Does Cook? He is definitely a notable source but the question is whether to merge this or keep this separate so who uses the term since that is separate from those who touch the idea of the Qur'an and the big bang. gren グレン 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (in case the above is not answered) because I don't see evidence that this should be separate from either Bucaille's page or Islam and science... or even a general page about the trend of "science proving Islam"... but, I think it's far beyond one scholar. The term might be notable enough to mention in related articles. gren グレン 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cook himself doesn't use the term.
    ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete It's not really clear what this article will discuss, if it's going to discuss scientific miracles claims in the Qur'an then there are better clearer titles that are not bound to Maurice Bucaille. (Imad marie (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: Who else uses the term? Malise Ruthven in A Fury for God, Granta, 2002, p.126.
  • Notability guidelines stipulate that the specific topic (a neologism, in this case) be given non-trivial (i.e. substantial, thorugh) coverage. Ruthven mentions the word in passing.
    ITAQALLAH 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• COMMENT: (pasted from above) BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (
  talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply
  ]

We can also easily delete the article on

talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference is precisely that we have masses of academic literature discussing creationism (using this very word specifically) and associated topics. That cannot be said about the word "Bucaillism". The belief of scientific miracles in the Qur'an might be significant, but you are attempting to categorise it all under the epithet of "Bucaillism", thereby unfairly poisoning the well, and attempting to popularise a term used in very few sources. Most of the sources used in this article mention the word "Bucaillism" not once.

ITAQALLAH 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So that's your objection? Another title for the same article is OK? I'd prefer the use of Bucaillism for reasons explained here but if the only way to have an artilce is under a title such as

talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If we're talking about the general belief and not the neologism (and associated baggage), what's wrong with

ITAQALLAH 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the answer would be clear if you read what's already been written in the talk pages on this. Predictions of scientific discoveries by the Quran and Sunna is a very specific issue. In the 14 centuries of Islam the miracle of the Quran meant its poetic and literary perfection (maybe numerology) up until a couple of decades ago - unless I'm very much mistaken. Bucaillism also involves some a

Qur'an and miracles

.

As for

The relation between Islam and science

, how many non-Muslims are going to guess that it includes the claim that the Quran predicted scientific discoveries? It certainly sounds like an article on the development of science in Islam, on the philosophy of science in Islam, on whether or not science conflicts with Islamic beliefs, etc.

Limiting this issue to a section in

talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The importance of the topic really isn't as substantial as you're depicting to be compared with Marxism, creationism etc. Would you settle for renaming to

ITAQALLAH 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Again,

talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Erm.. Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an refers to those interpreting the verses in a scientific manner, and the significance/importance of those interpretations. My proposal is as far as I'm willing to go. Whatever the case, the current title is in violation of notability guidelines IMHO, and the article currently has no content that cannot be covered elsewhere (probably excepting for the negative material against the "methods" Zindani and unspecified individuals) - most of it already is. Regards,

ITAQALLAH 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This issue is being blown out of proportion. I think this article should be deleted, and/or the reliably sourced content be merged into Maurice Bucaille, where ti can also be considered in the proper context.Bless sins (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okopipi (software tool)

Okopipi (software tool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This project is pure vapourware. Blammermouth (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep As per the same reasons in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okopipi_(software_tool). Nothing has changed to make it more deletable now. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment it has been a while since I last read the AfD stuff, but I think this was technically not done right. Since this is the second AfD call, I think there was supposed to be an a different macro used (afd2?). Wrs1864 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Whether something is vaporware or not does not determine its worthiness of inclusion. Please refer to the
  WP:AFD. -- intgr [talk] 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment This afd was improperly formatted – the {{afd2}} template was not added, and it was not listed at the log for January 11. I've done both now, and relisted it. KrakatoaKatie 21:11, 21 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, KrakatoaKatie 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, still notable. —Ashley Y 00:31, 22 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. Kurykh 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Steffen

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

Non-notable college football player — does not have his own page on ESPN.com or SI.com. Also does not have any accolades or any noteworthy statistics. Article also seems to have been created out of fun. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I agree with the above poster.
  Galaxy 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete All this lacks is little hearts to dot the "i"s. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 21 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 --

Avec Tristesse

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

Delete N/N per

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete They don't have any major media coverage, and they don't have any albums out yet.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:57, 24 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, defaulting to keep. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 190

Air Canada Flight 190 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the flight number (F. 190) retired because of injury or death? If it is, then it is notable and you should keep it. If not (the number is still in use) then *delete. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: retiring of the flight number is wildly inconsistent among airlines (some do only for fatal crashes, some don't even for fatal crashes), and I can't see that as a reasonable criterion for notability when objective criteria like death, injury, damage to aircraft, or press/media coverage are available. --MCB (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard to argue with that, and I'm glad nobody was hurt, but this is not a notable incident. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, Mandsford, you might want to read the article: 10 injuries, 6 serious. --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Among the most serious of the injuries was a broken collar bone. The last of the individuals was discharged from hospital at 15:30, 7.5 hours after they touched down in Calgary. This may be noteworthy if it changes flight standards (e.g. wake turbulance avoidance guidelines at altitude), but the event itself isn't (yet) notable. Jasmantle (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep; wide public interest and media coverage of an event (Google News cites 94 current stories, including every major Canadian and many foreign newspaper and TV networks, as well as aviation news outlets) in which there were serious injuries on a major airline flight, and the investigation includes malfunction of flight director (autopilot) and other equipment (that is, not just simple turbulence). There is no wide consensus for the so-called task force notability guidelines, which exist only as a proposal on a talk page (and, to my mind, have some serious shortcomings). Even under those guidelines, however, this article qualifies ("results in serious injury or loss of life.") --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish Delete for now - I'm somewhat on the fence. It has received a lot of media exposure, but Wikipedia isn't the news. At this point, I tend to think it's likely clear air turbulence, which is generally not considered a notable occurrence (in the Wikipedia sense) even if there are injuries. However, there are some suggestions that it is something different, which may make the incident notable. The incident is being investigated by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, so if we delete it and it turns out to have been caused by something novel - like software failure - then we can recreate it. And to be clear, I have contributed to the article somewhat, although I also tagged it with {{notability}}. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; the injuries alone would pass WP#ADL. Discussion at [pprune.org pprune] suggests this may be a byzantine failure, brought on by a combination of unusual conditions (CAT) and a design vulnerability of the autopilot software. In any case, why rush to delete? Allow the collaboration to occur and see what gels.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not every air accident is individually encyclopedia worthy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete without prejudice - Not notable per guidelines at the moment, tho it's unclear if there may be some lasting consequences as a result of final reports. If those are forthcoming, have a review at the AATF, and restore if there is a concensus to do so, without needing a formal deletion review, as this is a borderline case. -
  talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the breadth of coverage for this one makes it worth keeping, I believe.
  matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - it's an unusually well-written article on an interesting topic. We have other long articles on non-fatal airline incidents, such as the Gimli Glider. David (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - This is a current news item that will likely lack any real long term notability. As
  WP:N says A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. --neonwhite user page talk 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Per the guidelines referenced here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines, which is referenced by the "these guidelines" link above (see on the second page, the reference "Proposed notability guidelines are available for comment on the talk page"), this incident would be notable. This is per the proposed guideline rules "it involves unusual circumstances" (positively) and "It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life" ("potentially debilatating spinal injuries"—per [4]—are serious, though I concede the wp article doesn't report this yet).

Also, just as a side note: It seems to me that policy should precede AfD rather than the other way around. "We'll delete everything just in case the policy we're making says it's not notable," seems a bit cart before horse. CoyneT ^talk 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Did you actually read the article you linked? It said that earlier reports suggested "potentially debilitating spinal injures". That article made it very clear that the actual injuries were just "soft tissue" injuries - i.e.: bumps and bruises. Also, turbulence is hardly an unusual circumstance. Resolute 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 10 injuries, 6 of them serious, emergency treatment at hospitals, multiple independent
  reliable sources with coverage of the incident, this clearly falls within the criteria at WP:ADL. I think these characteristics make the subject of the article highly notable. The article should be expanded once there is a published determination of the true cause of the "computer failure" that is alleged by the pilot to have occurred — a very interesting allegation, especially as it comes from an experienced pilot who can be presumed to understand the difference between abnormal ("computer failure") and normal processes of autopilot disengagement. - Neparis (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not a notable incident, aircraft landed safely, all the serious injuries were that serious the people involved were released from hospital within a few hours, lots of media exposure appears to only relate to North America not the rest of the world. I am not sure what ifs are a good reason to keep an article without reliable evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - There is a pretty good chance that this event - even though the aircraft is reusable, nobody got killed, and the flight number didn't get retired - will be significant in that it will cause a meaningful change in understanding of some air disturbance phenonomina, or worldwide change in flight procedures. If there is such a learning then this article might remain standalone or be merged into the article about the causal factor. If the causal factor turns out to be non-notable e.g. that a pilot kicked the control stick, then delete it. But until then, and if it is within wiki guidelines, we could just leave this here as a reminder.Jasmantle (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid keep argument. Resolute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Let's document this flight when we know what caused it - if there is something notworthy. Until then, it's news -- and an ongoing investigation. Jasmantle (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seriously. "six serious injuries" meant a trip to a hospital that lasted a couple hours because a few people bumped their heads. Planes hit turbulence all the time. On occasion, the people that disregard guidelines on always wearing seatbelts get tossed around. This wasn't even the first incident of this type in the past year in Canada.
  WP:RECENT. Resolute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per MCB. GreenJoe (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't encyclopedically notable at the present time; it's just a news story. Transwiki to WikiNews, and delete without prejudice against recreation if there should be some genuinely encyclopedic repercussions or aftereffects at a later date. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this is more than transient news; that there are no fatalities in this case makes it even more notable.DGG (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. In my opinion this is should be a news article, not a Wikipedia article. The comments from MilborneOne reflect my feelings on the matter. PKT (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note there was another article (Air Canada Flight 190 incident) created that now redirects to the article we are debating here. PKT (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an article on a flight.... why should this be deleted? if this should be deleted, so should all the articles concerning flight incidents..... Messiisking (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiisking (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is non-trivial information. zoney ♣ talk 20:06, 26 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Spirit Flight 321

Asian Spirit Flight 321 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure Mr. Preston had a good reason for creating the article, but not every aviation incident merits a detailed article and permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article does not assert notability, nor have the sources to attest to it. Nothing of significance happened in the incident, other than the fact that it occurred. -
  talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Surly concessious wouldn't delete British Airways Flight 38, same type of accident, and no fatalities and and minimal injuries, would it? If this article goes, then British Airways Flight 38 by same rational.Patcat88 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  BA38 is different in that it is the first hull loss of a 777 in about a decade of operations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  BA38 is also different, in that the cause (power loss) is notable and may have implications for 777s (or fly-by-wire planes in general), depending on what caused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the mean time until notability guidelines are agreed upon, with no prejudice for re-nomination. --Howard the Duck 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The more people can find information on Wikipedia, the better. I do not understand the mentality of wishing to delete information such as this. It may be minor in terms of notability, but it is far less *trivial* than a lot of content on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, it was not fatal and according to the link no injuries. Aircraft overan runway in windy conditions, not that unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - To the closing admin: this incident is automatically presumed to be
  notable per Wikipedia's official guideline because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For this incident, there are at least seven independent reliable sources with coverage of this incident. That makes the incident notable.[5] - Neparis (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep; reliable sourcing and verifiability are clearly met, and notability is due to the wide public interest in aviation safety incidents involving scheduled air carriers. (A similar incident on a GA or corporate aircraft would probably not be notable). --MCB (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all the above. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete rebuild it as a WikiNews article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The argument is an example of systemic bias. It may not be notable in US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ, but remember that English Wikipedia is not US/UK/Aus/CA/NZ-only Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we have an Air Canada flight at AfD as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:42, 25 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 now that transwiki has been carried out. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage door

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Raskolnixov (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It should probably go to Wiktionary.
  Galaxy 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Garage door (since the article is about a style of outward (rather than overhead) door inspired by the housing of carriages for horses. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Carriage door to wiktionary:transwiki:Carriage door, which will preserve the edit history. - Neparis (talk) 02:23, 23 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

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

)

• Sooo, redirect? Seems a reasonable search term. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I was going to say to keep it, however I saw
  Galaxy 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have boldly redirected to
  File hosting service. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per

All Shall Perish

All Shall Perish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete and salt Article was remade, still has never charted, no more notable than 20,000 other bands on metal-archives.com P.S. Can an admin instruct me how to make the prior AFD box? Thanks-RiverHockey (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This nomination was malformed; the AfD tag was pointing to the previous nomination. I have fixed the tag and moved 2008 comments from the old AfD to here. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable band. Has toured internationally, released two albums on a major label. Not every single thing needs to be met on

A couple sources

• ASP at Nuclear Blast
• ASP at All Music Guide
• ASP at MTV

−₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - looks to meet notability.
  matt91486 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Meets
  WP:MUSIC with two releases on Nuclear Blast. Chubbles (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep They have produced two albums on Nuclear Blast, recording their third on Nuclear Blast as well. They also made a music video. Just check the sources mentioned previously, AMG is a notable reference acknowledged by everyone here on Wiki. Gocsa (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two albums, multiple concert tours (including a European one)... seems to meet
  WP:Music with ease. SingCal (talk) 01:48, 25 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. Kurykh 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of user agent strings

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

Unencyclopedic.

• Delete interesting and potentially quite useful, but WP isn't the place. Suggest this be provided without complaint to any user wishing to transwiki it to a more appropriate place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikiperdia is not a tech manual -- Whpq (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT -- pb30<talk> 16:53, 24 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 per CSD R3. Nakon 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business angel (in innovations)

Business angel (in innovations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is already a redirect for

Actually, I think this can be speedily deleted as an implausible redirect (since

Business angel already exists as a redirect).--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:32, 21 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. Kurykh 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

React Magazine

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

Delete nn magazine article written as a promo piece. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SingCal (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This article is factual. References have been included to support the facts as per the general notability guideline. It would be helpful if quotes were provided where the text is perceived to be promotional. Where this is the case, I shall gladly remove it.

For an example of a promo pieces and blatant marketing copy, please refer to

Magman7 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment See
    WP:WAX. SingCal (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak delete "Loaded" seems to have some evidence for notability. The other two mentioned do not, and neither does this one. However, I'm not sure what would be appropriate sources, and this needs the attention ofs omeone who knows the genre. DGG (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real notability established NBeale (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, as the consensus seems to be towards merge. However, there seems to be no exact consensus to how the merge is done, so if you have anything you want to try, I'd say go for it. Choose to salvage anything you like or nothing at all for merge, transwiki, etc. whatever, it will be in the history, but I'd say at least redirect to some article first. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

)

Cro-Marmot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Cub (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Cuddles (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

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

)

Giggles (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Handy (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Lifty & Shifty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Lumpy (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Mime (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Nutty (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Petunia (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Pop (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Russell (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Sniffles (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Splendid (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

The Mole (Happy Tree Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Powers ^T 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Is there an existing list of characters that all of these could be merged into? Obviously not all of the information, but at the very least the character name and the episode appearances. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history, the
    List of Happy Tree Friends characters. In September, characters listed above were split out into separate articles, although I don't know if there was any specific consensus for that. In October, the article was renamed to reflect the new focus. Powers ^T 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge All into either a new
  List of other Happy Tree Friends characters, which can then be moved to the appropriate article title. There was never a consensus to split the article anywhere on the talk page. Doc Strange (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure what there is to merge; it's all unreferenced plot summary and original research, isn't it? Powers ^T 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists don't usually have the plot summary stuff anyway. Just the characters' names and perhaps a very small other bit of information. So that can be done away with. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really a merge, then, is it? We agree that the content currently in these article should be deleted, right? Powers ^T 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a combination article If lists do have plot summary, then they are inappropriate, if they dont, they have no content. or so goes the argument that does not think that characters are as significant as plot in fictional works.DGG (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as these articles have no primary or secondary sources and are comprised of in universe plot summaries, failing
  WP:NOT. These articles are better transwikied to the Annex, as they fall outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge em SGGH ^speak! 11:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to the list of characters for the series. I haven't seen any good reason to have separate articles for each character.
  Improve] 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Remove, unsure about whether to merge or redirect or what have you but as it stands this name is a bit silly...It should at least be minor characters no?--Him and a dog 14:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if every South Park character gets an episode, and a list of culturally "significant" (Yeah right :P) phrases from The Simpsons does, to, each Happy Tree Friends character deserves the honour (note the "u"). 75.157.191.45 (talk) 05:41, 29 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. No clear consensus on if the article should be deleted based on lack of establishment of notability, or kept for improvement to establish notability; probably worth keeping for the time being for people to work on it.

Access computer college

Access computer college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable organization. However, precedent usually allows for colleges/major educational institutions, therefore taking to AFD for community input. This is strictly a procedural nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article on a technical college with no assertion of notability or importance. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence/assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete fails notability, also no references given. -Ravichandar 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This is actually a degree-granting college [6] and as such is notable. The article didnt show it, and i expected to find a mere vocational school, &they are not usually notable. DGG (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. But the article clearly needs work! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously. If we start deleting degree awarding institutions we may as well give up any hope of being a serious encyclopaedia.
  talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment that it has a web site isn't sufficiently convincing that it's notable; 6 ghits for "Access Computer and Business College" and not a whole lot better for "Access computer college" (5 pages of hits but no news). What's the accrediting org. for this institution? JJL (talk) 19:58, 26 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 on The Ancient Future Trilogy. Consensus exists to merge the other articles to that one. I will redirect; those interested may merge as they see fit. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Future Trilogy

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

Non-notable fantasy book series by author Traci Harding. No evidence of notability provided and a quick google search find nothing in the way of independent reliable sources asserting notability. While the author is possibly notable the books are not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

• The books in the trilogy;

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

An Echo In Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Masters of Reality (Ancient Future Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

), and,

Tory Alexander (Ancient Future Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Maelgwn of Gwynedd (Ancient Future Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge all into one article. The trilogy is notable enough for an article, even if just barely. The individual book and character articles, though, are excessive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If the information in
  WP:BK 3 for notability. Keep at least that article -- no opinion yet on the other articles yet. change: see below —Quasirandom (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Bleagh. Cold getting to my head. I meant specifically if the statement that The Ancient Future is being filmed, et cet. I note for the record that it was released in 1996, contra the statement below. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh come on, I worked hard on these pages!!! It's a fairly new series, only released in 2006, that's why it's not as notable as, say, Harry Potter. Traci Harding has a fairly large fan following so just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. At least keep The Ancient Future Trilogy page! I can merge everything onto that 1 if I must. But I'd prefer not to. If I don't make character pages then people might get confused because all these characters have different incntations that feature in the first 3 books. The other 3 they have perfect incantations & remain as the one character. --LilMizPiper (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all A Google search of 'Ancient Future Trilogy' only comes back with pages from book seller's websites (including Amazon.com placing the first book in the series at #2,540,537 in its book sales ranking [7]). The creator of the articles' clearly acted in good faith when they created the articles, but their argument is basically
  talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge: Based on sales and reviews it seems the series of book is notable enough for one main article covering all of the books and the characters. Based on the content of the existing articles in question this won't be so long as to violate WP guidelines. Oh, and I get 5600 ghits on ("Ancient Future" Harding) just for the record. The first book clearly came out in the late 1990s, not 2006, so the articles need better souring or research as well as a merge. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How many of those 5600 ghits pointed to independent reliable sources? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good point. My Google search of "Ancient Future Trilogy" got tons of links to book sellers websites, but no independent reviews or other reliable sources. I don't see how any of the criteria at
  talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is something of a complicated one. Normally, if a book has notability enough, I'd say keep its article; however, the character articles need, per
  WP:FICT, some place to merge to, and the only logical place is the trilogy as the character recur through the series. Given reviews and the apparent movie (though I still haven't found whether it's the whole series or just the first book), the triology is indeed notable enough. The characters, I'm finding no such sign they are. So: keep the trilogy article and merge all the others in this AfD into it. And along the way, dewikilink all those relinked characters, just to remove the temptation to create them. Not to mention tag for needing sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The Ancient Future Trilogy and merge the other articles into it, per Quasirandom. Bláthnaid 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as there are no
  notablity of these books. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete All I can't find anything on this that resembles a reliable source. Given the large number of blog entries for it, I'm certain it's fairly well known, but... I do think that moving this to user space might be a good idea. From what I can tell, Ms. Harding is fairly popular at I'd guess that at some point this series may be notable. It would be a shame to lose all this work. If someone can find even a couple of published reviews in a reliable sources, I'd change my opinion. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Eluchil1404. Dude, I spent a while searching, good finds. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a single article on the trilogy is probably best. A diligent search turned up a few reviews that look better than blog mentions.[8] [9] The movie rumour should probably be removed from the author's page. There is nothing on her website, IMDb, or google news, a pretty clear indication that any film discussion are highly preliminary at best. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 29 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boom Boom Room

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

Article about nightclub that reads more like an advertisement (

Agreed. At this point with the references used, it appears to be an advertisement. I was merely trying to illustrate the club, it's history, and it's contribution to Windsor Ontario. I added the stubs because the article is clearly far from completion and not really up to Wiki standards. It definitely needs more external references before being reputable. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of Notability. NBeale (talk) 08:17, 26 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.   jj137 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowell Khosla

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

It fails the notability criteria laid out on WP:CRIC, he hasn't played one first-class or List A match. Panesarisking (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Seems to have a few verifiable sources, and those criteria are a bout harsh, but that still isn't really enough. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 22:00, 21 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. Kurykh 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Hotels

New Orleans Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, tenuous grouping, falls foul of

• Delete - try Yellow Pages instead! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Information on architecture and history would be welcome in
  WP:DIRECTORY transgression with no material worth merging elsewhere. William Avery (talk) 20:54, 21 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. Secret ^account 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable guests of the Late Show

Notable guests of the Late Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate directory of guests on a TV show in violation of

• Delete - what is notable? Hence indiscriminate. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and above.
  talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unreferenced and original research. Almost fancruft, even.
  Galaxy 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete these aren't notable guests, they're memorable incidents. For those that, unlike
  WP:OR. I don't necessarily disagree with the inclusion of anything here, but what's the standard--one editor's opinion? I see it's intended as a split from the main article for the show. Beacuase of that, I can see some value in it, but overall it's hard to justify it without some criterion in lieu of extensive media coverage. JJL (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep I agree that it's notable incidents rather than notable guests, although it's possible to source some of the items that made news-- Andy Kaufman/Jerry Lawler on Late Night, Madonna, Salman Rushdie, Johnny Carson, etc., on Late Show were reported in the press. Author must have sources. Mandsford (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge - Wow, first time I've used that. Clearly this material would be important to anybody interested in the Late Show and should be included with that article. (However, if it violates
  WP:NNC. Torc2 (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge all
  sourced information to The Late Show. Guest9999 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I would have said merge but the main article is already quite long--and this is a relevant factor in creating subarticles. This is one of the few shows where I think this is actually important enough to include. The Madonna subsection shows a proper further development when one particular appearance is sufficiently significant. The most important elements of popular culture deserve thorough treatment. DGG (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.
  Wikipedical (talk) 02:25, 25 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Wilson

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

)

• Delete I have to agree that this article is a form of crystal balling. It's far too early to tell, and I can't find anything important on him either.
  Galaxy 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect Interested editors should discuss elsewhere and perform the required action. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium Phosphoricum

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

)

Very, very short article, free of context, does not even say what the substance is, and it's questionable whether every homeopathic medicine (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands or millions) even should have its own article. Also, it's been in existence a year, but noone has expanded it beyond the sentence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: while the article needs expansion, there are ample Internet hits for it implying notability. Mh29255 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Magnesium Phosphoricum is not a IUPAC name for a chemical compound. Nick (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chemical formula for Magnesium Phosphoricum, as given in some of the many books that document it (take note, Adam Cuerden), is MgHPO₄.7H₂O. It's probably worth noting in magnesium phosphate that this is also a phosphate if you want to merge the two. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I remind the nominator that there is no deadline, and that xe should always look for sources xyrself before nominating an article for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and what it says right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If an article hasn't been expanded in a year, then the right thing to do is to see whether it is possible to expand it. AFD is not a Big Hammer for getting stub articles to be expanded. This is a volunteer-written project, and we've had some articles that have taken five years to improve from stub status before now. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At present on the
  List of homeopathic remedies. I support this idea, when the list is created would suggest merging this stub into the list. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That would be more sensible than having an article for each; I very much doubt there is much to say about them except what they are advertised as treating. -- Mithent (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The material,such as it is, can be added to the list of homeopathic preparations. The remedy itself does not warrant an article. There has been no expansion as there really isn't much to add --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article contains no useful information, and can not be expanded much. The proposal of a table of homeopathic remedies made on the Homeopathy talk page is a much better proposal for dealing with this kind of information.--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- agree with RDOlivaw. "Alternative" medicine that very poorly refernced throughout the net. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm just wondering if it might be worthwhile for those interested in homeopathy to start their own mini encyclopedia over at Wikia, and we could have some basic topics here with links to their site, much as we do with Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. It seems some of the homeopathy topics don't meet our notability and verifiability criteria and something like this might offer a decent compromise. Nick (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Magnesium phosphate, at least for the moment. If Uncle G is correct as to the formula MgHPO₄.7H₂O, this should be added to the article. This is a different phosphate compound of magnesium, but could conventiently be dealt with as a separate section. The present article will of course survive as a redirect, so that the use of what I suspect to be an obsolete pharmacists' term for the compound will not siappear completely. I am not sure what the present usual chemical name is, as I last did chemistry, for a degreee, over 35 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could be better served by a reference in a homeopathic list, and does not meet the criteria for its own article. Per nom and other delete arguments --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is that not an argument for my suggested merge? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Magnesium phosphate and add a note, there, that the heptahydrate is used in making a homeopathic remedy (until a homeopathic remedy list comes into being). Tim Ross·^talk 12:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but what do I know? Bearian (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, basically. I'm going to get a little creative here. Several have rightly pointed out that a redirect should go to

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

)

• Delete. Per nom. Mention in the
  talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The info in the article seems to already exist in the article on the
  Canting Crew. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and redirect to
  Canting Crew article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  Galaxy 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Did you really mean that? They are currently two different subjects.
    talk) 23:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]