Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Perrine

I'm not satisfied that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. The article does make two claims of notability; namely, that Perrine is "part of the team" that helped her station win some awards. However, without knowing her precise involvement, it's not possible to say whether her role was at all notable. Apart from the awards, there's no evidence that she's the subject of multiple, independent published works. Finally, this article was created and authored entirely by a WP:SPA who is likely Perrine herself (see Image:Final Perrine Shannon .jpg for the admission) which leads one to suspect WP:COI issues. —Psychonaut 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does assert notability, and she appears to be notable, although a fan (relative by affinity?) seems to be editing the article. However, all WP:POV and WP:COI statements must be removed ASAP. See also at WP:COIN for further discussion. Bearian 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assertions of notability" are not grounds for keeping, merely for not speedy deleting. Corvus cornix 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, you are correct! Bearian 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. Videmus Omnia 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it asserts notability clearly enough, but as Corvus says, that's just the condition for avoiding speedy, not for keeping the article. Her role at WTEA may possibly have been significant for the award, since she was an anchor at the time. (Amid all the irrelevant stuff abut her ancestors, the article does not mention the actual award--from the Murrow web site [1] , it was the 2004 National award for Continuing Coverage,TV large market: WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh: "Hepatitis Outbreak.")
Weak KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss the merits of this article. Corvus cornix 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even her article on WTEA's site doesn't assert any notability. Clarityfiend 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local talking heads are rarely notable, she's no exception. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article, and I am not Ms. Perrine. I am not a fan or relative either. This article is simply my first foray into wikipedia authorship. I gathered the information by corresponding with Ms. Perrine, and I also got the picture from her. If I have mischaracterized the ownership of the picture, I am happy to correct that. As for meeting Wikipedia:Notability, I am trying to assemble that additional information at this time. Gmanhoobie 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of listings magazines

This is a list of products, it has no encyclopedic content, and by its own scope never will. This is an indiscriminant collection of information and seems to be exactly what Wikipedia is not. Until(1 == 2) 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Potentially useful, but I do see the indiscriminate information argument coming into force here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like Category:Listings magazines, but better. If this is an indiscriminate topic, why is that not up for deletion too? Kappa 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, the category makes sense, the article does not. A category simply indexes articles together, this article serves no greater purpose. Until(1 == 2) 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to know what country a magazine is published in? Kappa 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that information would be in the article about the magazine. Until(1 == 2) 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah I'm sure you love randomly clicking on obscure article titles until you find something you like, but real people have less time to waste than you seem to. Kappa 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine you could simply search for something you like. OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you imagine I would search for old magazines? Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for time periods, you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's" etc. OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um that doesn't seem to work... perhaps you could give me a specific example of what I should be typing and where? Kappa 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fairly indiscriminate list of information that has little value when isolated from each publication's article. Any reader who wishes to seak out this particular information would simply search for the magazines themselves. A category is one thing, but lists are quite another, and get treated accordingly. Adrian M. H. 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes using a category they would simply search fifteen different articles until they find the one they want. Kappa 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, when you look at a category it shows all the items. While it may be useful, this is an encyclopedia, not an index. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um please try to follow the discussion. When you look at a category it lists all the items without anything to distinguish them, so you have to click through all of them to find whichever is relevant to you. If this is "not an index" why are category lists allowed at all? Kappa 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following things very well thank you, I think it is more that we disagree than me being confused. This page is in the "article" space, categories are in the "category" space. There are different inclusion standards in article space, than in category space. This contains no information not present in other articles. Until(1 == 2) 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are going to waste our time and frustrating us to preserve the purity of your "space", which is something we should care about because...? Kappa 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....Until(1 == 2) 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are wasting our time and frustrating us for a reason you can't explain, or can't be bother to type. Kappa 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "our"? You are the only one complaining, please assume good faith with me. I am not going to bother repeating myself, but I have explained myself clearly. Until(1 == 2) 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" is readers looking for articles. Kappa 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets two of the purposes in WP:LIST guidelines. It provides some information beyond the name of the magazine (location, and years of operation), and it serves a navigational purpose. Although there is some overlap with the corresponding category, I would not call it redundant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Delete and replace it with Category:American Listings Magazines and Category:British Listings Magazines and so on? Corpx 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~Weak Delete assuming list really does not grow to violate WP:NOT#INFO; I'd also like to note to closing admin that the person primarily for the list is the one who created the page. Indiscriminate collection of information. You could simply just add and add and add names and links to it. To complete, it would have to have every single TV Guide, Job list thing, Classified sections, etc. As for the years of operation and location, I don't think we really need an article for that. Corpx has a good idea, perhaps that would work? OSborn^arf 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How the fuck is a category different? You could "could simply just add and add and add" articles to it Kappa 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, to be listed in an category, an article has to exist. People can add any non-notable magazine to a list. (and can we remain civil here plz?) Corpx 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the entries on the list currently have articles, so you are claiming this is an "indiscriminate collection of information" on the basis that someone "could" more easily add something to it? Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? For the indiscriminate collection of information bit, yes, that is correct. In current form, the list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only other information on the list page is the locations (could possibly be fixed by Corpx's idea) and the dates. The main problem is the list can balloon indefinitely to be reeeeeally big. Thanks, OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. It appears that Kappa created the article in the first place, and has had a history of profanity. Just a friendly reminder that you don't need to use curse words to get your point across. ;))[reply]

So your "strong delete" is not based on the assertion that this *is* an indiscriminate collection of information, but that someone *might* edit it so that it was. We must pre-emptively delete it in case that happens. Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have no intention of recognizing why I am saying Strong Delete; ah well. Anyways: The criterion for inclusion is very thin. This is for the most part rather redundant with the category. The only information is the dates and some basic information about them (most of their names are pretty self-explanatory) and of course location, which could be replaced by Corpx's idea, and could be expanded to "Magazines that ran in the 1950's". Thanks, OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the current criterion for inclusion is effectively "included in the category". That could be made explicit if you feel it's in imminent danger of ballooning to infinity. You seem to be proposing a lot of different categories... for example, what categories would City Life (1983-2005 based in Manchester, UK) fall into? Kappa 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Listings Magazines in The United Kingdom? I see what you mean: That would be a lot of categories to do "... in the 1980/1990/2000s"... Still, the problem remains that pretty much every city has their own or two listing magazine for things like classifieds, jobs. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this ... civilly, though) Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's assume there are a large number of notable local listing magazines in the world and someone makes articles for all of them. That would certainly overwhelm the current list. The contents of a category like Listings magazines in the United Kingdom would look like this:
The Crack (magazine)
City Life (Magazine)
City Limits
The Crack (magazine)
City Life (Magazine)
Due South Magazine
etc

You will note that these things don't necessarily have self-explanatory titles. There would be a desperate need for a List of listing magazines in the United Kingdom which looked like this:

The Crack (Northeast England)
City Life (1983-2005) based in Manchester
City Limits (1981-1993) Covering Greater London
Due South Magazine (1983-1991) based in Southampton
The List (1985) Covering Edinburgh and Glasgow

...which is what exists now as a subset of the current list. Kappa 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Kappa, don't get nasty just because someone disagrees with you, different people have different opinions. Until(1 == 2) 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wasting people's time and frustrating them for reasons you can't explain, or can't be bothered to type, you can expect those defending them to feel frustration and anger too. Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Until(1 == 2) 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here as a troll, congratulations you are doing a great job. Kappa 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down, this is a content dispute. No need to take it personally. Please try not to resort to name calling. The topic of discussion is the article, not me. Until(1 == 2) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"..." is not a very helpful contribution to a content dispute. Kappa 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A useful list ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the category serves the same purpose, does it not? OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We could have an article about this subject, but it would need to be comprehensive, include what was being listed and where the magazine sold. As it stands, I do not believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 08:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Instantly making it comprehensive is impossible, but it will become more so as wikipedia grows and more articles are added. Currently it's just as comprehensive as the category, although I supposed I could add some red links to it. It does give what is listed and where they are sold, but I've made that more explicit now. Kappa 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to argue with every delete? Until(1 == 2) 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a delete vote says "include where the magazine is sold" etc and the article already does that, I will point that out. Kappa 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "argue with every delete", open-minded listophobes can normally be talked out of their position, because if you get them to follow their logic they end up saying ridiculous things like 'you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's'. Of course, if a less open-minded listophobe refuses to participate in the discussion because of laziness, an inability to follow it or whatever, that presents a problem. Kappa 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Let's all remain civil here -- Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa was just asked to be civil higher on the page. I am pretty sure he is aware of the policy, but a reminder does seem needed. You think we can do this without name calling? Until(1 == 2) 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We" aren't doing anything... you have abandoned the discussion in the face of a question you can or won't answer, and your further participation here is entirely devoted to comments about me. Kappa 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO. Suggest replacing with a category attached to relevant magazines wikipages.Saganaki- 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:NOT does it say we can't have structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles? Kappa 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhan

There is no indication why this group should pass WP:MUSIC ; in particular, I did not find any albums they released, or tours they had. PROD was contested in June 06 with comment: "prod wasn't mentioned in edit summary + Google results in English/Latin alphabet may not be enough to establish non-notability of a Bengali band". I tried to address this concern by involving WikiProject India, but this did not turn up any relevant data either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a google search and found no evidence that the band exists in the first sixty hits. This link [2] doesn't really seem like the same band. The article doesn't mention any discography but "Reiki Music for Healing" doesn't seem like the work of these guys--the article would have us believe that they like to rock. I think Uppland's argument in removing the prod (mentioned above, in the nom) only makes sense up to a certain point--articles have to be verifiable and this one doesn't offer any sources. Darkspots 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Darkspots 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same paucity of relevant results, and it certainly fails WP:MUSIC based on available information. Adrian M. H. 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist groups

Not an article, but a list. The external links section is a link farm, and there are concerns about the notability of some of the groups with Wikipedia articles. The article is getting edit warring by rival artists, if you can believe that. (I know, edit warring is not a valid rationale for deletion.) Whatever useful purpose this article/list serves can be accomplished by creating Category:Surrealist groups. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree 100% with --Akhilleus. The article serves no purpose except as a link farm and an opportunity for Eric W.Bragg, who is Wikipedia user TEXTURE SAVANT to promote his friends in surrealist groups that are non-notable and whose articles were already voted for deletion by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. I do not want to engage in an edit war with Eric W.Bragg, (TEXTURE SAVANT), he has his own website, SURREALCOCONUT.COM to promote his friends. Wikipedia is NOT the place for online promotion. These are blogs, not notable groups, just more promotion. Delete.Madsurrealist 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Madsurrealist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Delete If a new article is created Category:Surrealist groups with these important links, then I am okay with deleting the present article. Akhilleus, if you bother to check these links, you will learn that they are to valid websites for current surrealist groups. Not a linkfarm.

Let it be known that this user Madsurrealist is really another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who was also busted recently for having a multitude of sockpuppets a few months ago (Classicjupiter2) Here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2

Madsurrealist/Classicjupiter2/Keith Wigdor has fought all along for the removal of these groups just because he couldn't have his own vanity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

IF KEITH WIGDOR CAN'T HAVE HIS OWN NAME AND WEBSITE MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA, THEN NOBODY ELSE CAN EITHER. Such is Wigdor's infantile mindset.

Therefore, Keith Wigdor's motive is entirely self-serving and nothing but a case of sour grapes.--TextureSavant 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the merits of this article, not the motivations of the person nominating it. It will be up to those who participate in this discussion to decide whether the article merits retention. Making personal attacks just damages your cause. Explain why the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about surrealist groups might have at least a fighting chance, but one that's just a list of external links? No way. Covered in WP:NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penguinate. (Er, delete.) Already covered by Category:Surrealist groups. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zetawoof. Saganaki- 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Surrealism#Surrealist groups and anything that should be ext-linked to Surrealism#External links. Then redirect to either the 1st merge-target or the category. Seems obvious. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and m:Mergism. --Quiddity 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real surrealist groups of 1930s would be interesting, the current linsking is just spam. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on some of the links and they don't even work. Some sites have been removed offline.Madsurrealist 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Nixon

Article about minor character in a series who has yet to make her debut. I PRODded the article but the tag was removed without discussion. I believe the information should be merged into The Bill article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been renamed. I have ProDded the renamed article so suggest this AfD is halted. Not sure if I should simply delete this whole section - advice please? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The re-named article has been deleted. Precious Roy 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee heritage groups

Spin-off article (POV Fork?) from debate at Talk:Cherokee, but no evidence that such thing exists. 0 ghits. Non-notable organizations of this type seem to have websites, such as this Cherokee heritage msn group. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second nomination, previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Heritage Groups.

At the articles talk page, we can read that the article was formed based on the following statement:

"There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation (the one based here in Tahlequah, at the W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex).

"Only three are federally recognized, but the other groups run the gamut of intent. Some are basically heritage groups – people who have family with Cherokee heritage who are interested in the language and culture, and we certainly encourage that," said Miller. "But the problem is when you have groups that call themselves ‘nation,’ or ‘band,’ or ‘tribe,’ because that implies governance."

Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or de-POV. This sure looks like a POV fork, and as such I lean towards deletion. On the other hand, the subject of persons/groups who identify as Cherokee but are not recognized as such by the Cherokee Nation or the U.S. government seems like a valid encyclopedic topic, so if it's possible to make this an NPOV article, spun out from Cherokee in compliance with summary style (and perhaps with a different title like Cherokee identity), then I could be persuaded that it should be kept. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee identity was deleted as a POV Fork of this a couple days ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee identity. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would preclude the creation of a new Cherokee identity that wasn't a POV fork. It looks like the ongoing mediation at Talk:Cherokee is probably the best place to determine whether there should be a sub-article on this topic, and what the contents and titles of those articles should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a ways into the process of creating just such a page, and agree that there's no conflict between the pages, or need for POV forking. The old article could hardly even be assailed as original research; it was so devoid of sourcing or verifiability that you'd never be able to tell what was original. But it need not be that way. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is Original Research claiming non-Indians are indians. Nominator refuses to comply with the terms of a previously decided arbitration. This article was created to attempt to provide a place for these types of materials to exist. Since the nominator has stated they will continue to oppose adherence with Wikipedia Policies and Federal Laws in this area, and continues to place unverifiable original research into our project claiming non-Indians are Indians, deletion and removal of all such materials seems the best course. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - You are accusing the person who nominated the article of acting in bad faith despite your own support of the nomination, which is rather baffling. Are you aiming your WP:ABF at the intended target? But if you do think he or she is disregarding an arbitration decision that governs this discussion, can you provide a link to that arbitration case so we can all get a better idea of how we might be constrained in our possible courses of action? Article seems to be relatively well-sourced, so any original research problems are not endemic. It also seems to be pretty careful about not making its own claims that "non-Indians are Indians", but rather describing the claims that the groups themselves are making, along with describing any opposition to those claims. You seem to be objecting to a different article than the one under discussion, if one takes your comments at face value; or perhaps you are simply using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above argument is an attempt to show that a particular ethnic identity does not have any foundation in fact. But it there are people who claim such identity, and there are sources for people making such claims,, then the subject is notable. The question of the validity of the claims is an editing question. The very quotation used in the nom. shows the notability. "There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation" Miller apparently doesn't think all of them--or perhaps any of them -- genuine, but that doesn't affect the importance of the subject.DGG 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment demonstrates complete and total ignorance of Native American History and the laws associated with Indians. Cherokee Identity is a political and not racial distinction and always has been. Even even someone claims Cherokee ancestry, they must be able to prove it. If they are not members of a tribe, then there are no rolls from which to trace ancestry. People who have watched too many Hollywood movies have this mistaken perception. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While this may be true, it is an argument for a different article. Cherokee heritage groups themselves aren't notable. People of Cherokee heritage who are not a part of federally recognized tribes may be encyclopedic, as Akhilleus suggests, but they do not take part in groups of this sort in notable numbers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons of DGG above. -SESmith 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Cherokee Nation spokesman uses the term "heritage groups", so the article title seems pretty NPOV to me. Plus, it's a pretty effective way of describing groups who identify themselves with a Cherokee heritage without implying that they have gained federal recognition. Although individual groups might not be notable themselves, it is surely a notable fact that there are so many groups that align themselves with Cherokee heritage despite lacking federal recognition. I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to describe these groups in the aggregate, the nature of their claims to Cherokee heritage, and the legal, political, financial, and cultural ramifications of such claims. The article is not a true POV fork because it treats a more specific subject (the various groups and their claims on Cherokee heritage) rather than simply representing a different view of the same subject (Cherokee). Cherokee heritage groups, for instance, does not discuss general Cherokee history, the language, or famous Cherokees. The only significant overlap is on the question of recognition, but that's what I'd expect from what's essentially a spinoff from the main Cherokee article, as that's the natural point for it to spin off. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the most accurate appraisal I have seen so far. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deletion based on the premise that these groups are not notable, even in aggregate (where are the reliable sources talking about them, or is Miller the only one?). I have suggested the creation of an article along the lines of DGG's comment or moving this article to a broader title, and I respect that this suggestion has not been widely accepted for legal reasons. Most of the content of this article comes from a subsection of Cherokee that was written with that article (about all people claiming to be Cherokee who aren't recognized) in mind, thus the sources are talking about something different than the article title.

The POV part comes in because of this limited scope. The reason the limited scope is accepted, and not the larger one, is that there is a Cherokee Nation spokesman who has talked about "heritage groups." However, this is the only source that talks about the limited scope, all of the other sources talk about the larger population of Cherokee who are not recognized. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and alanyst.--JayJasper 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per clear consensus and WP:SNOWBALL. Talk page also deleted. -- Karada 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pork salcho

This appears to be a joke. Google searching (web, book) yields nothing to indicate this is a dish with the notability given in this article. It also appears that a previous article by the same title was speedily deleted. Evil1987 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Served in many mexican countries? Correct me if I'm wrong but last I counted there was only one Mexican country. Anyway, as the nom states, there is no evidence of notability for this dish, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total nonsense. StudierMalMarburg 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on Google, WP:NOT a cookbook even if this is true. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, assuming the meal exists. Acalamari 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very real dish. I serve them all the time at work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PorkSalcho (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. It's an absolutely hilarious article, but it most definitely is a hoax. Absolutely zero hits on google, and no dictionary reference to salacho. Trusilver 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent hoax by single purpose account whose only edit other than to this article and this AfD was a lame sex-related vandalism of an article on an underaged girl. --Charlene 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence any such thing exists. -- Karada 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Squat

Put up for speedy for notability, but did not seem 100% certain of NN status to me. But still, no independant sources are given for his notability. TexasAndroid 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy deletable.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, same rationale as with the Assassin article. TheAnarcat 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the most notable member, with multiple side projects and other interests, of the clearly notable Assassin (rap crew). Chubbles 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most notable member of a popular rap group in France, various releases independent from the group, recently interviewed by Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3246,36-818042@51-921148,0.html and has been interviewed by a major French rap site http://www.rap2k.com/interviews-rap-30769-l-interview-exclusive-de-rockin-squat.html Jayran 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since Assassin (rap crew) is notable, so is he. The article needs a rewrite, though - I'll make a start on that immediately. Terraxos 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (rap crew)

Band with no sourcing to show notability, but IMHO just does not quite deserve speedy. The band's founder, Rockin' Squat, has been placed up separately for AFD. TexasAndroid 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame to remove Assassin from Wikipedia. It is a landmark in French hip-hop, the first french hip-hop band to be self-produced and not signing with the major labels (which might explain the lack of what you call "notability"). It is a reknown hip-hop crew in France and is still producing albums. See also http://www.assassin-connexion.net TheAnarcat 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Article doesn't assert notability. {{db-a7}} is appropriate. Jay32183 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC) A secondary source has been added to the article. Jay32183 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several albums on EMI France, a major label, establishes notability. Article now asserts national tours of France as well. Chubbles
- No it doesn't. Notability is established by being the subject of multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independent of the topic. The sources must also appear in the article, not just exist elsewhere. Jay32183 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point 5 of WP:MUSIC states: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." This group has seven releases on a major label, five on EMI and two on Virgin. Chubbles 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band has charted in France, which establishes notability. http://lescharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Assassin Jayran 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - chart success (one album was up to #11, not bad at all) and substantial body of work seem to establish notability. It's tough to find refs for bands that are focused in non-English speaking countries, I've noticed; the refs pointed out above seem to work for me. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a notable group, but the assertion of notability needs to be more clearly made in the article. Terraxos 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moorpark airsoft

The entire page is incoherent, unreferenced, spammy, non-notable original research. It's an article - get this - about an Internet messageboard about a airsoft/paintball club, or something similar. Strong delete as failing WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, etc.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, this page is bordering on complete bollocks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; is a vanity page for an internet forum, a non-notable one at that. LiamUK 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable webforum. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notablity for it. Acalamari 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; very few ghits. John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradach Racing, Inc.

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this group is noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 2007/06/27 16:46:11

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisementBigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Memon

Non-notable dancer who auditioned for America's Got Talent. Right now, I don't think this man should have an article just yet. I feel the same way about the article about The Duttons. When these two acts are actually finalists or something, then they can have an article. But not now.

Delete - Non-notable performer and no credible points of refrence (spelled wrong) to back up the article. Fanficgurl 5:21 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. Right now it is just some guy that has been on TV. Hasn't done anything notable. Not only that, but it is blatant advertising to vote for the guy.--Kranar drogin 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low notability, no external coverage & plenty of OR. — Scientizzle 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Bradach

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this person is notable. Also appears to be cut and pasted from here

Delete both. Self-promotion, not notable (what differentiates this from thousands of other short-track racing outfits?), sounds like a news release. Realkyhick 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both --- poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisement.Bigdaddy1981 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also WP:COI, WP:SPA. Bearian 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 72.204.22.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing this entry from the Articles for deletion page, and has removed the AfD tag from the Kimberly Bradach article itself. Corvus cornix 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no referenced information to merge; when verifiable data becomes available it can be added to the main The Sims article. A Train^talk 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims:The Island

Reason: No references etc. Turk brown 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doing a very simple Google search shows that the game is confirmed, so the article should be kept, and it can just be expanded. In the future I would recommend doing some research on something before you start nominating something for deletion because it doesn't have sources. This took me 5 seconds to verify that it's in production. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded and referenced using reliable sources. Very little content and since few details are available it constitutes crystal balling. merge and redirect per the below thread. MartinDK 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, WP:CRYSTAL ball does not apply as it has been announced as a game, it's not a "it might come out", it's a "will come out". 2nd, it is not a valid reason to delete an article because it needs expanded. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then feel free to add the sources as long as they are reliable. WP:N and WP:RS applies no matter how many Google hits you get. Your criticism of the nomination is unfair and at the very least bordering bad faith assumption. The (misleading) external link you provided is a reprint of a press release. Those are specifically not regarded as reliable sources. MartinDK 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I never claimed it to be a reliable source. I just showed you a real easy way to confirm if the game is real or not. With that being said, you could expand upon that, knowing that the game is confirmed, to research and find reliable sources. And how can you say that I'm bordering bad faith? If I read something, and it's fishy, I go looking for more information to see if I can back something up. I don't look at an article and go "well, it has no sources, I'm going to nominate it for AfD". You can't just blindy run around in the dark. Make sure you bring a flashlight or something. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry but that's not how it works. The onus is on the people who want the article kept to provide reliable sources. As I stated above you are free to add those sources if they are so easy find. Your uncivil remarks about me running around in the dark are inappropriate and constitute a personal attack. I am asking you to show me the sources that you claim to have found within 5 seconds of Google searching. MartinDK 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "you", I didn't mean you personally, but rather "you" in the general sense, ie: anyone. ie: someone could easily find sources and add them to the article, and possible add some more information on the game. With the filters that my job put on searches I would not be able to do as much as I would want to at this time. When I get home I could try to help clean it up. The question is this: Is it notable? Well, it appears to be a game for all the major consoles, and it is confirmed, so yes it is. It just needs to be expanded upon. Definitely not worthy of a deletion --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not clear to me why we need third party reliable sources here. While they're certainly preferable to primary sources, there's no reason to think that the press release is false in any way. After all, the company is in the best position to know what they plan to publish. That's sufficient to meet WP:V. And it's not like notability is an issue. When the game comes out, it will be part of the best selling PC game franchise ever. I'd say that, in of itself, makes the game notable.-Chunky Rice 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. Verifiability is not the issue here. Until there are enough reliable sources with non-trivial coverage this should not be a separate article. WP:N and WP:RS are quite clear about these things. I don't understand what the big problem is. It's hardly an article as it is now and given that very little is known beyond what is in the article it should not be a separate article. MartinDK 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are you citing otherstuffexists? I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't understand the argument that you're making in general. WP:RS is a guideline based primarily on WP:V. If you agree that verifiability isn't an issue, why bring up WP:RS? Is your argument that this game isn't notable? If that's the case, I'm not sure I understand what criteria you're using. It's true that it probably doesn't meet the Primary notability criteria, but those aren't the only criteria that we use. I agree that lack of content is an issue, but even with bare bones information, we should be able to get it up to stub quality. That said, I have no objections to a merge.-Chunky Rice 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made an honest mistake when I was looking up the wikilink. I corrected it just before you posted your reply. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited. Let's wait until we have some more to say about this game. MartinDK 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For those reading this without having read the article yet this is what all the fuss is about:
      - The Sims: The Island is in production for the Xbox 360, the Wii, and the Playstation 3. Not to much has been released so far, but it will be joined with Need for Speed: The Island in which the enviroments will be very similar. There will be offline story mode, offline sandbox mode, and online sandbox mode.
      - That's it! That's all we have right plus a link to a press release and a ~~policy~~ guideline called WP:RS based on WP:V which specifically says that press releases being self-published sources are not reliable sources. WP:N requires reliable sources. MartinDK 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as a point of information, that's a guideline, not a policy. -Chunky Rice 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, notability can be satisfied any number of ways. Certainly coverage by multiple reliable sources is the most common one we use, but others have been found to be acceptable. -Chunky Rice 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Feel free to cite what guideline or policy you believe should be applied. I'm especially curious because WP:V is also the same policy that tells us we shouldn't use self-published sources. MartinDK 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You already said that Verifiability wasn't an issue. But regardless, the policy states, "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." A press release about an upcoming game clearly meets all of those criteria.
        
        As far as notability goes, I've already said. It's a major release from a major publisher in the best selling franchise of all time. To argue that it's not notable is a little silly, in my mind. -Chunky Rice 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you don't believe that the article needs to meet WP:N and cite any reliable sources with non-trivial coverage as long as it is a future game confirmed with a press release from a major publisher? In other words notability is inherited in your opinion and does not need to be asserted? You haven't cited any policy or guideline that supports this. Are you able to cite anything that supports your arguments in favor of keeping it? WP:N specifically says that self-published sources should not be used to assert notability. This is bordering wikilawyering. MartinDK 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:IAR? All joking aside, I never said that the subject doesn't need to be notable, just that it doesn't need to have multiple reliable sources to be so. All of the notability guidelines support this. Also, I've never made an assertion that the article should be kept. -Chunky Rice 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        He he good answer! So all the debating aside do we agree that for the time being this could be merged into the main article, this one turned into a redirect and then when more details and coverage are available a separate article could be created? That would be the ideal solution in my opinion. MartinDK 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I did say, somwhere in the thread, that a merge would be fine with me. The reason is that there just doesn't seem to be enough information to support an article. I still think that the game is notable. -Chunky Rice 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I changed my !vote accordingly. As long as this is merged for the time being notability is not an issue and the press release could be used in the main article to verify that the game is in production. MartinDK 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect (or just Delete). This is a couple of sentences about a potential game without any citation at all. Merge a sentence that it's planned (with an actual citation) to The Sims: Sequels and redirect this title there until there's something to actually say about the game. One of the reasons wikipedia is not a crystal ball is that funding for the project may fall through, the company making it could be bought out, the game itself might run into technical problems that cause a company to shelve it indefinitely, etc. At the moment it's something that maybe, possibly, could exist someday. If and when that day comes, I have little doubt someone will write an article about it, with reviews from periodicals that cover the gaming industry. Until then, this entire "article" is an uncited statement of intent. -Markeer 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge as above. The game has been announced, but there's currently so little to say about it it would be better suited as a footnote in the The Sims article than an article of its own. Terraxos 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mofunzone

Non-notable website. The website doesn't have reliable sources and doesn't meet the notability guideline WP:WEB. It survived an an earlier deletion discussion a year and a half ago, but all the "keep" arguments were based on Google hits and Alexa ranking, neither of which are indicators of notability and are flawed as described in WP:GOOGLE. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per earlier deletion failure, plus this site has been around for eight years and is used by millions around the world. It's also one of the earliest providers of online games, casual games, and more. Do a research please, and check the site's stats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.249.77 (talk • contribs)
- I did do research, and there's no reliable sources written about this website. You mind showing some? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well what type of information would you like? There is the Media Awareness Research, Archive.Org's archive of the site for the past 8 years, and Alexa's rating of the site. Considering how relatively new online games and casual games are on the net, mofunzone.com among a few other sites, is the first site to provide casual games both online and for download eight years ago. Another similar and notable site is Newgrounds and much more on wikipedia. I believe this is a waste of time, especially considering this is the third nomination proceeding the previous two failed nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.249.77 (talk • contribs)
    - As I said in the nomination, Alexa rankings aren't reliable sources, nor is archive.org or a listing in a rankings. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it asks for published, fact-checked sources, which none of the sources you gave are. And just because it failed two previous AfD does not mean this result will be the same; consensus can change, and the keep arguments of the previous AfDs were very weak. Unless you can come up with sources that are more reliable, it might have a chance. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If what I have mentioned previously are not reliable sources, then how do you explain entries such as newgrounds? I can list more!
        If you've got them, then list them. And just because Newgrounds has an article doesn't mean this site should have one, too. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no serious assertion of notability. Terraxos 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't any reliable source, even though Mofunzone is my favorite website for online games.--Sbluen 23:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar vision

No reliable sources provided that would help establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an in-school television station. It's notable within the walls of the school, nowhere else. If it really uses true (expensive) DTV equipment, it might be notable, but if it's digital over IP, I believe there's a place called YouTube that's done it before. Acroterion _(talk) 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - schoolcruft suitable for Myspace not wikipedia Bigdaddy1981 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrox

No sourced claims of notability found; a quick google search shows pretty much nothing but minimal data on open submission sites and forum posts, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the online game wardrox, which can be found at http://wardrox.com Wardrox 15:23, 28 June 2007 (GMT)
- Existence of the game is not the issue here; the issue is whether there's enough sources to meet the notability criteria. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, after reading the notability criteria I can see the article should be removed through lack of sources. I can put the information elsewhere. I am a little surprised though at the harshness of the criteria, but I understand why it's there.Wardrox 11:09, 29 June 2007 (GMT)
Delete per WP:WEB and lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, fails notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Terraxos 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nursing diagnoses

Unsourced list of "diagnoses" that are vague in the extreme. Seem to have originated from NANDA (but not sourced to any official document). Surplanted by Category:Nursing diagnoses. Delete. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I personally identify with Dr. Wolff's characterization of the nursing diagnoses as "vague in the extreme" (the whole point of NANDA is to make nurses feel like they're doing something unique, something that is outside the strictly objective medical realm), this list is still an important article to have, considering NANDA's impact. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced properly, but still should stay.--DLand ^TALK 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no useful context here, and to say the list is confusing to the average reader would be an understatement. There's no stated inclusion criteria either. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say whether or not a list would be warranted at all, so cleanup might be an option, but given the current state of the article the only suggestion I can make is to delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nursing diagnosis and clean up. Clarityfiend 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I'm not sure if the content is encyclopedic, but it is certainly not appropriate for a separate article.DGG 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I firmly believe that what nurses do is unique and vital to good healthcare - but this is just a long, unsourced list of diagnoses, many of which are nebulous and ill-defined - as has been said above. Nmg20 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nursing Diagnosis and clean up. This list is an important resource to nurses who create care plans for specific patient problems. The list is of only those specific diagnoses recognized by NANDA. While the idea of nursing diagnoses may be unpopular and underutilized in the clinical setting, they serve as an important tool in the academic setting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiltape (talk • contribs)
Delete. This is an extremely confusing list of things that don't seem to mesh in any useful way with medicine as most of us know it. If it is to stay, some way of putting it in context is needed. --Markbenjamin 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would advise against merging given the lack of context. Anyone who can provide context is free to recreate. Further, per the second comment above me, I truly hope that no nurses use Wikipedia to help create patient care plans. Someguy1221 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, as noted above, not only a vague and unencyclopedic list of nursing 'diagnoses', but it is completely unexplanatory-ie the interested reader can not understand any more about these 'diagnoses' (which look to me more like UK NHS nursing 'risk assessments') after reading the page than from coming to it fresh. In addition it looks very much like it was copied off a nursing educational curriculum or somesuch. Totally useless.FelixFelix ^talk 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin's Daughter

Article does not assert notability, aside from a single quote from a review. As it is just released by a brand-new author, it doesn't appear that notability can be established, at least not yet. Strongly suspect that it is a promotional piece -- the editor is contributing articles only to this subject. -- Merope 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, Unverifiable, smacks of Recentism. Article creator appears to an SPA that has been spamming new articles related to some not particularly notable publishing company. DarkSaber2k 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish significance. Jay32183 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment as above, so below. I also suggest looking into the contributions of the author of this article. Many of them, including Avari Press (which is being considered for deletion) revolve around that very small press. I think this might be rampant advertising and COI.--Ispy1981 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pambazuka News

The result was no consensus. CitiCat 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, seemingly fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources for verification, also suspect a conflict of interest with the article creator. Prod removed without comment by aforementioned COI account. DarkSaber2k 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Googling suggests that it might just about be notable, but the lack of sources and conflict of interest mean that I wouldn't greatly oppose its deletion. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say there are assertations of notability in the article, but they aren't backed up by reliable sources, and the WP:COI aspect is worrying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V -- Y not? 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable, at least if the part about having half a million readers is true, and gets plenty of hits on Google. Needs a far better article to prove it, though. Terraxos 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for the readership being half a million? I didn't see it with a brief scan of their website, although the scan was just that - brief. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find several instances of independent coverage which make its notability clear: [3], [4] (subscription), and [5]. Also, it has won multiple other awards. Picaroon (Talk) 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some weird cross of trivia, original research and a dictionary definition. Maybe wiktionary would take it.-Wafulz 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown envelope

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article exists solely to define a term. EyeSerene^TALK 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's an envelope and it's brown; there's not much more to say. --kingboyk 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and lack of real notability. Darkspots 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Words fail me on this one... Next week's article: White envelope. Trusilver 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above. Acalamari 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article uses a connotation that is useful: " It is used in and known in government, business and popular culture as a means to deliver concealed material - bribe money, secret papers or any sort of "under the table" transfer." It is more than a definition. I read a statement on another site about an issue being a "brown envelope" issue which I did not undertand until I came to wikipedia. Thanks.— Rotallad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Of course brown envelopes are used to deliver concealed material, generally the only other option is a white envelope which, being white, aren't as concealing as brown envelopes. And you needed a Wikipedia article to tell you that? I've never heard of a "brown envelope issue" either, I think you made that up. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; useless. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it can be expanded.Galactic Explorer 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, rename to brown kraft envelope and do more work on the article. I have added more information about the correct name, at least in the US, for these. Brown kraft envelopes are a specific class of envelopes. They are made from paper that uses the Kraft process, hence the more correct name of brown kraft envelope. In some ways using brown is redundant, however kraft envelopes are now available in other colors, so maybe that is not entirely correct. I'd get some references but I'm rather busy right now. However, a simple search in any US office supply catalog for kraft envelope will bring up numerous matches. Vegaswikian 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'm sorry, I'm just unsure where you are trying to go with this. Are your intentions to expand this to other office supplies as well? We can have an article for black bic pens, and black papermate pens and then also the blue bic pens. I'm sorry, but is there really anything that could be placed in this article change you are proposing that either isn't already in Kraft process or could be put in that article? If I'm missing something then say it, I would be happy to change this to a 'keep' position if there was anything here to warrant an article. Right now there's not. Trusilver 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel pitch tape

An unreferenced fan piece about a never-aired 6 minute TV clip. (WP:NOT) kingboyk 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. Alternatively redirect and merge into Angel (TV series). MartinDK 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't whip out the "c" word often, but this, my friends, is cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references. I would back the merge proposal if this were referenced material. Darkspots 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis

I can't find any references to Dr. Malik being associated with the "one gene, one polypeptide" hypothesis, or extending it to "one gene, one amino acid" -- furthermore, I can't find any references to Dr. Malik as a biologist. Google isnt everything, I could be looking in the wrong places though. ArglebargleIV 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author who created this page was given a notice by removing content from the article he or she created. It doesn't look a good idea to warn the author for fixing his or her own information from the article he or she just started. (Although the warning probably had a reason, he or she removed the tags after all.) About the article, it has even 4 tags of how it lacks the quality of being in Wikipedia, (Noticing that the nominator created the tags.) and the title doesn't really explain a lot about the information in this article. I'd suggest a delete, and if some verifyable information appears, it would be better to use another title anyway. ~Iceshark7 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article itself says, "It was first proposed through the famous work of biochemists, Tatum and Beadle," This article is about Malek's unusual rewordings, which seem to be unnoticed. He's real enough, an animal geneticist with 9 papers in PubMed eg PMID 15109052, none apparently notable. There could be an article on the subject, which is a notable concept, but the first step would be to remove this one. DGG 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. While the hypothesis may deserve an article, this is not an article about the hypothesis. Dan Gluck 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. There's also the slight fact that it's wrong. Someguy1221 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a language barrier issue, but the parts of this that refer to Malek's work sound like scientific nonsense to me. In my opinion, if the topic is going to be covered, it should be under the title "One gene - one enzyme", with significant reference to Beadle & Tatum, some explanation of the molecular basis later discovered, then something about splicing. I can't find this book "Mutations and Beyond", I can't find a single web page mentioning this, without any references I must suspect this stuff associated here with Malek is a fabrication, hoax or OR. It's suspicious that the creator of the article contains the name "Mina". Even if Malek has said something on this subject, it seems to be an individual's rewording and extremely far from being notable. Madeleine 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one gene one protein hypothesis or one gene one enzyme hypothesis per notability or notability. The validity of the hypothesis is irrelevant considering its historical importance. The text needs serious cleaning up though. Debivort 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main issue here is the complete lack of confirmable sourcing for any of this. A hypothesis being invalid is relevant when there's no hard evidence that what is written is an accurate portrayal of the theory's evolution. While the theory may be a notable precursor to modern understanding of genetics, this can only be properly written through the use of reliable sources. Someguy1221 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and so we biologists will--probably the best name is the original: one gene one protein, as it's that formulation which won the Nobel prize. First step, as I think we all agree, is clearing out this one. DGG 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Green

This player never played at a professional level (external link in the article states "he did not break into the first team for the Canaries") and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. Prod was contested (by an admin, no less) ChrisTheDude 12:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C. the article for which says that it is a professional team which played in The Football League 2007-08. You listed it on prod saying "This player has never played at a professional level" and there was no mention that you disputed the fact of the article, only that you found it not notable. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the external links in the article states that he never played for Norwich City and that he only ever appeared for their Youth team. Therefore, where "the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C." it is factually incorrect as he has never played at a professional level and he is therefore not notable as he has never played in a fully professional league. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the player never played at a professional level, he does not meet notability requirements. The article appears to have been created by someone who knows him (see his userpage). Seems to me an obvious candidate for deletion.--EH74DK 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pro appearances. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. --Angelo 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Norris

Non-notable artist. User:Tjnorris created this autobiography which was then moved to his user page. Then User:Clarklovins got created to put the page back up. Hmm.

At any rate, all external links are self-published, and the two discs mentioned in the Discography can only be found here, on a single press release copy, and on the artist's home page. No other claim to fame. Coren 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coren. Links to own websites warrant deletion on grounds that this is self-promotion, i.e.WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange argument, since most articles on living artists/musicians/actors etc include just such links. Johnbod 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as NN. having links to one's own websites is not reason for deletion, relying on them mainly is certainly an indication. As well as reviews from newspapers in and around Portland Oregon where his gallery Soundvision is located, there's a citation from a major review source The Wire, I take that to show just adequate notability. DGG 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Needs work but otherwise its ok with me. Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Callelinea has been copy-pasting the same !vote to dozens of bio-related AfD -- Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Coren if you bother to read any of my Critiques in the past two days, you will see that many of them I have stated what I felt was needed to make it a better article.. Not all are CUT and Paste as you state. So much easier to critize then to create. In this particular article I stated it needed some work but that it was fine with me.. after that I just stated my opinion on what wiki should be about.. Perhaps I shouldn't.. Callelinea 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE.. I looked in google and found lots of things on artist. I included some of them for you guys to see.. The artist is NOTABLE.Callelinea 03:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep seems pretty borderline to me - a busy bee locally, but no real non-local coverage. Johnbod 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This artist/music critic is important in the very small but interesting world of sound art. He recently was on a panel in an international sound art conference in Montreal, so I argue that while he may not be "notable" to the general public, to this more specialized field he is of interest. He is also one of the more important critic/ artists in Portland OR. while not the center of the universe, is at least on most maps. I would like to also say that I think Wiki should be ere on the side of inclusivity.Soapsnydler 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — Soapsnydler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Some of the content appears to be dated (for instance Soundvision no longer exists).Recently Mr.Norris has had critically acclaimed exhibitions at Chambers gallery and also at the 12X16 gallery both in Portland Oregon.His curatorial work and critical writing have elevated his local status considerably in the last two years.He is fundamental to the Portland art scene and is now represented by The New American Art Union (a progressive gallery) here on Oregon. — 67.100.122.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:54, July 2, 2007 (UTC).
STRONG KEEP I am aware of TJ Norris's work and he is most definitely notable - both by Wikipedia's standards and those of the art world at large. I assume that the person who tagged this article for deletion just want to see more content to prove that Mr. Norris is worthy of a Wikipedia page. As such, I have taken the liberty of editing this article in order to provide additional content. Please look at his accomplishments and contributions and let us please put this discussion to rest. Nerdletta 19:03, 03 July 2007

KEEP I have followed TJ's career for a number of years and am not sure how his work is considered to be not notable enough for inclusion here. He was a well established artist in Boston for many years, was a resident artist of the Boston Center for the Arts, and showed in numerous prominant galleries and museums there and around the country. Since moving to Portland, OR a few years ago, he has really made a name for himself in the art world with the establishment of his critically aclaimed gallery, Soundvision, and his curatorial work at other galleries as well contributions of his own work in numerous group and solo shows. He has been highly praised by just about every art critic in every print medium in Portland, including the Oregonian. He also writes for numerous national and international publications and has been a panalist on many presentations on the arts around the country and in Canada. TriMix, the compilation DVD that he curated, is available on Amazon and iTunes--not just on his website as indicated above. I'm new to the editorial process at work on Wikipedia and I apologize if I am missing something here, but I definitely support the inclusion of TJ's listing on the site. Kevredmond 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"STRONG KEEP" -- TJ Norris has had a long and sustained involvement in the arts as a maker, writer, etc. I can't imagine why wikipedia would not want to include him! This seems a little crazy to me... if he were living in NY would we really be having this conversation?-

Comment "[I]f he were living in NY would we really be having this conversation?" Yes. Freshacconci 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The attempts at self-promotion are troubling per WP:COI. However, he's done some things that are notable, and as long as this article is heavily edited, I would say keep. Freshacconci 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Eternal Daughter

The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. A search brought up some coverage in Computer Gaming World, a real actual print magazine. That alone probably isn't enough to keep by itself, but I'd consider voting to keep if another source can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The game was covered in a review by 1UP.com. Combined with coverage by Computer Gaming World, I think that passes for notability. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we get a scan or a link to the CGW article? Whispe ring 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available online without paying $7.99, but it's the March '06 issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nevermind, found it. Here. Looks to be a fairly trivial mention though, in an article with other free games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment That is rather trivial, one good source so far. Got another? Whispe ring 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems just about notable enough to me - but needs these independent sources added in the article itself. Terraxos 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's close, but seems notable enough. It also has an entry in HOTU, which is just on the edge of "reliable", here. More importantly, despite its lack of critical citation the game's had impact. It's the foundation for the notoriety of Derek Yu, founder of The Independent Gaming Source and now a review editor at GameTunnel, and for the anticipation around his upcoming game Aquaria. It also has significant grassroots popularity which is inherently difficult to cite; I'd put it as the second-best known independent exploratory platformer, after Cave Story. If anyone ever makes a Derek Yu page, an Eternal Daughter page will instantly become obligatory; without one, I think it still warrants existence. HypoCee 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamfoiling

Despite an unreferenced tag since March 2007, this article lacks citations. A google search for "Dreamfoiling" reveals only this article, and mirrors and links to it. The article creator, Iamdalto has explained he seen experimental logs proving the phenomenon, but has not been able to cite any. Kaid100 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete lack of sources. --Tikiwont 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this may be based on something actual, the lack of sources and evasive style of writing leads me to believe that the author is taking some liberties. Either way, not noteable, we have no way of knowing this actually exists. Calgary 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Resistance: Fall of Man as there is already a section there on the subject and history is preserved for any further merging or moving to any other wikis. Peter 14:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimera (Resistance: Fall of Man)

Moved to gaming Wiki, the article can be found here. Also article is unsourced and is a List of Enemies in the game (similar to the deleted List of enemies in Duke Nukem or List of command & Conquer units). I am also in support of a merge but what happens to the images in the page? Cs california 10:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_a_vote and reconsider your position. It would be nice to be able to reach a properly discussed consensus here. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of reliable sources: "It is not explained in the game where the Chimera come from or what they really are."--Tikiwont 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems fine to me and is more than simply a list. Parent article is too large for this to be merged into. The lack of references can easily be dealt with and should not be used as an excuse to delete an article. —Xezbeth 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting it is Wikipedia is not a game guide sadly. Thats why I move most article similar to this to a gaming wiki. This page is similar to pages such as Monster of DukeNukem 3D and those list of Command & Conquer units. But References to this article is useful so I suggest creating a link from the gaming wiki article to the Resistance page --Cs california 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia that is only of interest to players of the game and to nobody else. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Should therefore be moved to another wiki, as has been done and deleted in accordance with these Video game wikiproject guidelines. Also fails notability. The game is notable, the creatures in the game are not and there are no references to indicate that they are. GDallimore (Talk) 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Heavily) Condense and Merge (change vote) Having gone over the main resistance article again, it appears that all discussion of the Chimera has been removed from that article, presumably because it was moved to this one. I therefore agree with Calgary (below) that this article should be [heavily] condensed and merged into that one. However, I still strongly maintain that it doesn't even come close to warranting it's own article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and Merge with Resistance: Fall of Man. Maybe the bulk of theinformation is unneccessary, but I think at least a portion of it is significant enough to inclued in the afforementioned article. Calgary 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and merge - Vital information for only a single game, so there really isn't any reason to decentralize the Resistance info at this point in time. Wickethewok 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleyan Christian Academy

School that fails WP:ORG; article does not mention any special achievements, secondary coverage, or the like. Had been tagged with notability concerns sice Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "removed prod - high school". I do not find that argument convincing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think all high schools are notable; this one seems not to be. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - I'm not really convinced that even state athletic championships make a high school notable, but I'm clearly in the minority on that discussion. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE et al - WP should not be an endless directory of schools. Notability is not established by the article EyeSerene^TALK 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Most high schools articles have access to ample material to demonstrate notability. The school has won multiple state sports championships in different sports, and multiple independent reliable and verifiable source have been provided to demonstrate this fact. Notability is proven. Alansohn 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Alansohn, rewrite establishes notability through many reliable sources. [User:TenPoundHammer|Ten Pound Hammer]] • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has clear athletic notability, now shown by RSs. DGG 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua bronaugh

Obvious self-promoting autobiography here, notability seems questionable, though it does assert his notability so perhaps doesn't strictly qualify for WP:CSD#A7. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, maybe even hoax - he doesn't seem to know the country of his own birth. --Huon 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable artist, only 1 year out of college. NawlinWiki 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable and and a conflict of interest. Creator has the same name as the article. Acalamari 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a WikiUser creating his proper article outside a User page and unsourced as well.JForget 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as either vanity by a simpleton or a hoax (as Huon notes Baveria was never part of East Germany). Bigdaddy1981 02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the subject of this article and it seems someone is an overzealous fan in making this entry. Although flattering, many of the facts are incorrect. Creator went to the extent of using my name for a profile name. Jbronaugh 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject User:Jbronaugh wishes, and perhaps block Joshua Bronaugh (talk · contribs)? John Vandenberg 02:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Schumacher's Batman universe

Delete article that is redundant to content of the articles on the two movies covered, does not make a lot of sense given that those two movies are in the same continuity as two previous movies, and constitutes subjective (POV) interpretation to say anything otherwise. It at least borders on OR. Wryspy 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be largely OR and a POV fork at that. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; interesting, but OR, and any relevant information should be included in the individual film articles. There's also the Tim Burton's Batman universe article. Masaruemoto 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is largely OR. Jay32183 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two movies already have their own articles and a third article talking about them seems to be completely unneccesary. Stephen Day 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is basically original research about the in-universe details of the films -- not appropriate for the real-world context sought on Wikipedia. Better suited for a Batman Wiki. A better article (still in rough shape) for film details (production and so forth) would be Batman film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur as a WP:WAF violation. Alientraveller 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete Dirty, dirty part of Batman history. Must scrub harder.--Perceive 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus mainly because this discussion is almost indecipherable. There are also far too many comments by single purpose accounts and unregistered users. The article was also never tagged for deletion with an AfD template. I have renominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2nd nomination). Please keep comments there based in policy and guidelines. Please also sign your posts and indent your posts using bullet points ( * ) at the beginning. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra Mission

HI all

Since some prefer to post at the top, and not sign their messages as per WIKI, then I will ask, at the top of the page, to respect the posts of other editors and sign in at the bottom of the page, not the top.

Please sign your messages as per WIKI (4 tildes) with date.

Jeanne--J.d'arc 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE DELETED. It is full of fabricated views and has been the forum for endless biased edits by a few individuals obviously bent on distorting the truth to serve their purpose of slandering Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg. The pages for Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg should be merged to a simple stub - the one proposed by Renee is good and to the point. These pages just need to be locked since history of these edits show that they don't do any justice to the audience of Wikipedia. - SS

PLEASE DELETE: the content of this page is grossly inaccurate at best. I practiced Sahaj Marg for a while and had no adverse reaction to the group or the practice. Because of time constraints i stopped. I have never been forced into any practice or activity and no one is knocking on my door from the group. i am truly appalled at all the false allegations made against this rather open group who are interested in serving spiritual aspirants for free. - kk

Duplication of material on Sahaj Marg page, currently used as a blog to promote a certain POV, no third-source citations, currently used as an attack page Renee 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admins...

This page is not a duplication of Sahaj Marg as mentioned above, and represents the history or the legal entity called Shri Ram Chandra Mission. This SRCM has many factions, two of which (one registered in India in 1946, and one registered in California in 1997) are now in Supreme Court of India regarding the control of this entity. Sahaj Marg is the technique taught by this organization and the teachings and methods differ according to which faction one reads.

The article should not be deleted and should remain with some POV's by recent editors removed for a more NPOV article. Sahaj Marg article should be more NPOV and in accordance with WIKI policy. The Sahaj Marg article has deteriorate in the last few months and now has two "non-neutral" editors (one trying to "elimininate" (POV) the articles and one trying trying to include the "cult" POV) and a few "at arms lenght" editors participating peoriodically.

Jeanne --J.d'arc 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Shri Ram Chandra Mission page on Wikipedia is a fabrication of ideas and thoughts of disgruntled individuals. This page has been misused and should be removed immediately. I believed Wikipedia to be a source of honest information, but this seems to take me away from this idea. I would urge the core editorial team to meet people who are currently practicing Sahaj Marg, interact with them over a period of time, practice the system themselves, to understand the efficacy of the system.

The citing of court cases, verdicts, etc, sounds like politics we see in India. Such POVs seem to degrade Wikipedia into a Blog site, and should be completely avoided.

Sharat --User:Sharathegde 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

You seem to have two places for comments on deletion. That is not fair or effective. Is there a conspiracy involving some admin? Please fix and make WIKI!

Do not bow to those who would attempt to hide the truth (NPOV facts referenced according to WIKI policy) and then if not able to, to eliminate it. That is not WIKI. FIX the problem and show the truth, not PR. I'll be watching.

Charles --Roicharlemagne 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is useless in every way imaginable. It is so POV'd that nothing short of a complete rewrite is going to save it. All in all, this article is an example of the absolute worst that Wikipedia has to offer...HOWEVER, an article being bad isn't a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. I see no reason to do anything except keep and improve it. Trusilver 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Anwar 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the related article Sahaj Marg is the subject of a mediation case. I'd suggest a procedural close to this AfD (without prejudice to immediate relisting) pending the results of the mediation. Caknuck 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current article smells of bias and needs a total rewrite, but the subject is interesting. It deserves the attempt. Rumiton 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DELETE. There is no doubt that this page should be deleted without delay. What started of as a simple page on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, a spiritual organization has resulted in what can only be described as perversion, by people who in some way feel antagonistic towards this way of life, each because of certain personal reasons. 4d-don, a blogger who believes the page is his own, is clearly on a path of hate, because he attributes his marital separation to his wife's inclination to attend sunday meetings of the Mission rather than church. If Wikipedia encourages such people, it only results in the perversion of another great ideal - Wikipedia itself. It should also be kept in mind that much of the content posted by these folks is defamatory and in many cases violative of copyright laws. Vivekdurai 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! The current page is full of bias and all references has negative connotations with no information at all - completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Every attempt of adding some meaningful info about the true spirituality that Shri Ram Chandra Mission serves and promotes have been continually defeated by couple of individuals with a vendetta.

DELETE THIS PAGE Please delete this page as whatever is written on the page is absolutely false. It looks like it is written by people who are motivated by sheer negativity in their hearts. The teachings of Chariji and SRCM are to create love amongst all the people of the world irrespective of caste , creed ,race or religion .Its been 12 years since I started practice and nowhere I have seen force being used to do anything . Meenakshi890 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePlease delete this page as this has become place for few individuals like Shahwat and Don to propagate their agenda. There are only handful of individuals who keep writing completely baseless articles everywhere. They are utilizing Wikipedia to give credence to their hatred based agenda. They have successfully managed to make Wikipedia a blog and serving their malicious agenda.

I have been practicing Sahaj Marg for more than 10 years. Spirituality is practicied in highest and purest form here. Everybody is free to practice as well as free to not practice. Nobody asks you if you are practicing or not?

I do not know background of these individuals like Shashwat etc. but I know from my experience that what they say is a pure lie and fabrication. I do not know which group they belong and what is their ulteriormotive of spreading such a lie, but they should not be allowed to abuse Wikipedia forum for propagating their agenda.

Please delete this page immediately. --Nirajsri 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Page definetely needs to be deleted in interest of humanity. I am a member of this spiritual organisation for the past 10 years and I have never been forced to do something. Chariji has no forced control over any of the member's lives. Its purely voluntary. Marraiges are never forced upon individuals. Their opinions are definetely asked for and if they themselves want to get married by Chariji's wishes, only then he steps in. In any case its the individuals who make the call in all scenarios. Regarding the forceful control of ashram in shajahanpur, members of SRCM stepped into the ashram's premises only after a high court judgement in favour of us. The case trudged on for around 12 years and not even one member of SRCM even ventured close to the premises. Only after the legality of SRCM's claim over the premises was authenticated by the respectable high court, we called it OUR ashram. Chariji's claim for successorship was never clouded by any mystery and was NEVER EVER rejected by any working committee. 99% of the followers at that time accepted Chariji as the new master with the remaining one standing out for reasons only they know. The reference that chariji has asked us not to refer him as Master is purely contextual as the entire genesis of SRCM's teachings is onus upon oneself. We just promote a healthy way of living which is achieved by maintaing a balance between spiritual and materelistic halves of human existence. No one is ever asked to leave his/her religion. We have people from all walks of live belonging to different religions, castes and geographies. As for the marraige in ashram is concerned it is just to ensure that like minded people meet each other so as to have a happy married life. But there are people who have married outside as well, like my own brother. My sis married a christian whereas we are core hindus. We just believe that segregating people on basis of caste, creed and sex is un called for. All humans are equal and have all the right in the world to live a respectable and happy life.

Finally my most humble submission is please dont believe any of the tirades against SRCM. I am not asking you to believe me as well. Come to our ashram and experience for yourself what truth is. visit our website with the same name and knw the truth straight from the horse's mouth. If still you dont believe any and all of u are most welcome to visit our ashrams spread all over the globe to experience urself. We never impose our opinions on anybody. Learn about it for yourself. - Abhishek

THIS PAGE DOES NOT BEFIT YOU - WIKIPEDIA I have been watching the development of this page and the Sahaj Marg page on wikipedia since Feb 07. I have spent hours reading blogs and entries of some of the main contributors, e.g., Br 4d-don and Br Shashwat, with an open mind trying to understand what is it that they are really trying to get across and why. After spending hours of reading, most of the things they are trying to convey does not sound and feel right. Having been an integral part of this mission for 8.5 years now, all I can say is, this is how they may view it as. I did not respond right away because, really wanted to give time to understand and did not want to react. Recently I came across this statement which seems to be the cause here - "We all see the same thing differently because we all stand at different locations (interpretation wise, understanding wise or evolution wise)." Is this difference or uniqueness not what characterizes us as humans? Now to say that my view is the True view, will again be all too human and our history is replete with incidents of such conflicts, why history, we can pick up the newspaper and look at the present. Well, the point here is such view points or POV as you say, should not be there on Wikipedia because is it not against the very essence of Wikipedia to disseminate opinions? And that's why I say - This page does not befit you Wikipedia! -Duty2love 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ALL EDITORS who question the TRUTH of the SRCM article (followers of Chari and SRCM California)

Now that SRCM (California) adherents have been "encouraged" to read "on-line" information (they were not "encouraged" until recently), I would ask that they participate in editing the article and make it more "NPOV", and then stay and discuss with other editors who want to edit their TRUTH. To delete the article does not serve HUMANITY or WIKI. That is simply "GIVING UP" and HIDING the TRUTH which is "corruption" is it not?

Edit the article and get "references" that WIKI admins will accept and see if everyone is "against SRCM (California)". Statements vilifying others and their beliefs or "religions" (as Chari does when he calls relgions such as Hinduism and Catholicism "corrupt") only show the corruption and "un-charitable" nature of SRCM and its adherents. Show references to show how RELIGIONS ARE CORRUPT! And then one can SHOW it on WIKI as the TRUTH according to Chari and not just a TEACHING (POV) of Chari.

The lineage that was developped with the assistance and input of our Sufi brothers and the disputes that were collaborated on by all factions, is recorded in their individual lineages and referenced as such. SRCM attempts to hide the facts when they do not favour them but these facts are the TRUTH according to OTHERS, and they are referenced according to WIKI. If you don't think so, ASK some ADMIN to MEDIATE.

I agree that some recent edits are POV and should be removed or re-written in a more WIKI format.

If anyone finds data that is inaccurate, or POV, pass it and your references by some ADMINS or mediators, for EDITING in WIKI NPOV.

SPIRITUALITY is not afraid of the TRUTH and stands in harmony of the NPOV TRUTH!

Jeanne--J.d'arc 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheme

WP:N - Subject is not notable, does not meet WP:SOFT notability requirements.
WP:V - Article is not verifiable, no sources whatsoever, and the only external link is the project homepage.
WP:SOAP - Article reads very much like an advertisement for the software in question.
WP:COI - Article is edited in large part by Nenolod, who developed Atheme.

Delete cacophony ◄► 09:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully agree that this article is not notable. I just tried to clean it up... by the way, it's all lowercase, cacophony. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 11:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, as per WP:COI, you are not allowed to comment on this AfD. I advise any closing admins to keep this in mind, too. cacophony ◄► 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --81.178.14.141 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Jmax- 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G11 Will ^(talk) 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete weak delete. I'm on the borderline of if it passes WP:SOFT or not, disagree with WP:SOAP, but agree with WP:V and WP:COI Q ^{T C} 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Independence Party

This is about a tiny former U.S. political party, which was founded as a splinter group from the very small fringe Southern Party. Its head was a non-notable blogger. It has now disbanded, supposedly. It's unknown if they ever ran anyone for office. The article has no assertion of notability and no sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the Southern Party article. Failing that, delete it. Adrian M. H. 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be hesitant to merge unsourced material (the only kind in this article). We could include there the mention of the Texas branch of the SIP, which still has a website. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article about a minor, non-notable splinter party. Terraxos 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mess Patch

Article shows very little importance in relation to the subject. Kai ^talk 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, probably no reliable sources out there. Even for the legal troubles I was unable to come up with anything but blogs and forum posts. --Huon 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have articles on software patches now? What next? DLLs? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Corpx and Alansohn both made valid points, and once the article has been referenced, the default result must be not to act. Non-admin closure (I know non-admins aren't supposed to take these, but I believe it is the correct result.) Shalom ^Hello 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International School

This is an elementary school, which offers courses in Japanese, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese - just this fact does not give any notability. Also, article is written in an advertisement tone - "From the first day, The International School immerses a child fully in Spanish, Chinese or Japanese language and culture." Corpx 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable school with no outside sources asserting notability, and article reads like an advertisement. Latr, Katr 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Spanish government designation got my attention. Withholding my !vote pending further reliable sourcing. Latr, Katr 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established. Katr67 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established EyeSerene^TALK 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Designation as one of 28 International Spanish Academies in the United States and the only school in Oregon offering language immersion instruction in three languages are all strong claims of notability. This is not merely a school that offers foreign language instruction as part of an English language curriculum, Additional independent sources should be added. Alansohn 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a unique elementary school curriculum give it notability? Corpx 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all the more remarkable at this level. Doing it with three separate languages is even more notable. Alansohn 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the elementary schools in Texas offer instruction in English and Spanish. Does offering 2 languages make them notable? Corpx 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two languages, where one is English, would not be notable. This school offers three, separate non-English languages, the only school in Oregon to do so, which seems to be a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick language search, I found another elementary school in Oregon that offers English, Spanish and Chinese. If an elementary school started teaching advanced math/geometry, would it become notable? Corpx 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school you've found offers a Spanish immersion program. All the other languages are offered on a limited curricular basis at 30 minutes per day. The International School offers full immersive instruction in three languages. Offering advanced math/geometry at the elementary school level might well be a claim of notability. Alansohn 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would rather see it merged with Portland, Oregon, as it may not quite notable enough to have it's own article. It can be valuble info in the Portland article itself, much of the important info can be easily fit there--JForget 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. The school is distinctive,--I doubt there are any other US schools that actually teach 3 non-english languages at the elementary level to this degree of fluency. We finally have a notable elementary schoolDoes need real sourcing, but should be possible.DGG 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now, a references states that it's received some grant, thus noting that the school has gained some national recognition. Notable.--Kylohk 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Psst, Noroton--I appreciate your argument, but look again--this article is about an elementary school. Latr, Katr 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Latr, I guess you're right, but, dang if it isn't such a good elementary school that I THOUGHT it was a three-language high school. Now THAT'S a good school.Noroton 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Alansohn. Normally I think elementary schools should be merged into an article on the district, but as a independent school with some arguable notability, I think this should stand alone. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User:Alansohn. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.-Wafulz 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Closenplay 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 2nd tier ad services vendor, but they mostly operate in the b2b zone and most people have never heard of them. There are 300+ Google News Archive results; founder profiled; 2001 technology profile. Turns up in stories about pop-ups and click fraud (combatting, not committing). --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything your Google link returns is either a press releases (PR Newswire) or only a trivial mention. Closenplay 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll grant there are a lot of press releases in there, but there are also plenty of real articles: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc. Taken together, I'm sure they constitute "multiple independent sources [which could be] cited to establish notability". JulesH 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep the article would benefit from a ce (didn't add the tag in case it gets deleted), but it looks reasonably NPOV and does have some ok sources EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zedo turned up in a Spybot scan I was running and I wanted to know what it was - this article at least gave me some information. seglea 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shalom ^Hello 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of many adware companies to be aware of and well with bounds of WP:CORP and WP:N... Ranma9617 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted November 20, 2007 because article continues not to meet encylcopedic criteria
Please add new comments below this notice.69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Also, article does not provide any relevant information for people wishing to learn more about the company or its "advertsing" services. I was disappointed with the quaility of this article when trying to learn more about ZEDO as were others (ZEDO talk page).69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:CORP. If you are "disappointed with the quality of this article," then improve it. As it stands, I fear your edits divulge a bias against the existence of any mention of this company, for whatever reason. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my edits are inappropriate and the content that I removed belongs in the wikipedia, please feel free to revert my edits.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was not aware that you can start an AfD as anonymous user. I am also not familar with the option to "relist" an article for deletion, because usually is a new AfD started. Anyhow. The reasons why the article should be kept were provided in previous discussions already. I agree that the article is not clean and very "thin". I added the "company-stub" template to indicate its sub-standard quality and early stage in the article development process. I do not recall my edits for this article stub, but your note on my talk page indicates that I did edit the article once hehe. I probably did some general cleaning of very elementary stuff that were more technical and formal in nature. I also removed a number of unnecessary "references" from the stub for the Board Member, the companies clients and its competitors. The stub should be extended with quality content and not with "garbage" like some of the stuff that was in there until now. However, I don't think that the article should be deleted entirely. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is not in the early stages of editing, its been in existence for several months.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from the New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hucrest Elementary

Article is about an elementary school that is not notable for any other reason. From reading the article, there are no criteria that would make this elementary school stand out from others Corpx 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roseburg, Oregon. Deor 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roseburg School District ~~(which I will create)~~. Latr, Katr 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging to the school district would be better than merging to the city. Katr67 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that you've created the school-district article it can be redirected there. But I don't see the need for the same list of schools to appear in both Roseburg, Oregon and Roseburg School District, so I'm going to replace the list in the city article with a link to the district article. Deor 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you double check your edit? I don't think the community college is part of the school district. Katr67 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Deor 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roseburg, Oregon per above. This asserts no notability Eusebeus 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per above.--JForget 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Roseburg School District. With the creation of the district's page, it makes no sense to redirect to Roseburg, Oregon. I do not think that there is any content in this page worth merging. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the school has been running for 50 years. I have added a reference for the recent headmasters and the IES fact sheet. Details from offline newspaper articles will fill in the gaps over time. John Vandenberg 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think just 50 years in existence gives notability to a building. Even cited, the list of principals doesnt give notability either. Every school has a list of principals. Corpx 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article has been expanded again. A lot happens within the walls of a school over 50 years, and most of it happens at tax payers or the local communities expense. The correlation between education facilities and demographics makes them worthy of note if the material can be sourced. It was never my intent to indicate that a single ref would be evidence of notability. I realise that others consider schools differently when it comes to notability, and this Afd is heading away from a keep to demonstrate that; if the Afd doesnt swing to no concensus due to improvement, I request the closer does not delete the history in order that I can merge my improvements into the district and city articles. John Vandenberg 08:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that any government entity/building would have notability. How does this article about this elementary school show any impact on demographics? Also, whats the significance of a local credit union CEO teaching at an elementary school? Corpx 10:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've expanded the article again.
No, "any" government entity/building are not immediately notable; local government facilities are usually not worth dedicating an article to; they are just a part of the town/city/whatever and function to support it with very little unusual occuring between their walls. OTOH, schools can be notable, people do look up Wikipedia for schools, and biographies of people usually include the schools a person attended.
Regarding demographics, this article lets the reader know when an elementary school was added to the region, details about the headmasters (prior training/experience), and recent additions about the chess club give the reader a better background on the quality of the education and extracurriculum activities. Those are all useful when researching a person from the area in general. If I was writing a biography about someone who went to this school, this article would be of assistance; I would immediately want to know whether the person was a member of the chess club. In time, this article will expand to give more directly useful data to people researching the area.
When was the last time you read about a CEO teaching chess at an elementary school? The exact details of his teaching are not mentioned in the source; hopefully someone will augment it using sources I cant find online. John Vandenberg 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is the CEO of local credit union. Local businesspeople frequently donate their time to help out with local educational institutions. When you look up biography of a person, I highly doubt it mentions the elementary school they attended. I'm in favor of all high schools having inherent notability, but taking it to elementary schools is way too far. Corpx 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why the Elem school could be considered an important part of a biography. Biographies of staff members that go on to do more notable things are one example. here is a bio that mentions the Elem. School attended. I've yet to see a good argument why elementary/primary schools are inherently not notable. John Vandenberg 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one person who was influenced by actions done at elementary school. I still think that a very vast majority of notable people dont discuss elementary schools when talking about their influencing factors. The elementray schools are not inherenty notable thing is what I picked up from reading the AFD over the past few weeks. If an elementary school is inherently notable, then why woudlnt any public service building be notable? This school also fails the notability mentioned in Wikipedia:Schools, which tried to set a guideline. Corpx

Keep - notability comes from multiple reliable sources, per WP:N, and this article has enough ogf them together with notable and unusual chess achievements. TerriersFan 18:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorize all the articles as trivial mentions Corpx 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ORG: "Any school article which references a news account the headline of which states Principal agrees to shave head is automatically a keeper so keep yer paws off of it." Or WP:ORG will say that as soon as I put it in. Additionally, the article seems to have some useful and interesting information in it. Seems encyclopedic enough for me. Noroton 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstarte notability, particularly regarding its achievements in chess at the state level. Notability has been demonstrated per WP:N. Alansohn 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

John J. Sullivan (military)

Unsourced bio does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:V. Gilliam 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability from independent sources. Slight possibility of some domain notability but we should have sources to tell us. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He had a military career and is an advocate of Christianity. No indication he satisfies WP:BIO. And if he is a Christian teacher, why is he tagged as "military?" The article focuses on his religion rather than saying he is notable for having a military career (without any sources). The tone is POV and inappropriate, but that could be fixed by editing. Sounds like a fine fellow, but Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia with articles about every fine fellow. Edison 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In terms of WP:PROF, he's non-notable. But the article lists a lot of other somewhat-notable accomplishments, and the sheer quantity of them pushes them pushes this over the threshold for me. It has no sources, but what little I searched for did check out (e.g. Appalachian Athletic Conference really does list him, with "Col.", as its commissioner). —David Eppstein 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The article is definitely problematic for POV. I'm going to agree with David, the sheer volume of semi-notable accomplishments would qualify him as notable. I'm primarily looking at his military career in this regard. It needs to have source issue fixed asap to avoid future Afd though.Horrorshowj 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are numerous issues with this article. The bio was cut and pasted from Sullivan's bio page on the Servantleader Ministries page [11]by an anonymous user with IP Address 66.169.86.92. The same user added notes and links to Sullivan's book and entry under servant leadership. There was already a John J Sullivan entry which pertained to a Massachusetts Democrat. 66.169.86.92 replaced that article with the text of this on and also changed the John Sullivan (disambiguation) to add John J. Sullivan, "author, teacher, leadership consultant, fighter pilot, commissioner". I'd say the c&p qualified as a potential copyright issue, but unsurprisingly whois reveals 66.169.86.92 to originate in Asheville, NC the same city as Servantleader Ministries.

He is currently the AAC chairman as previously pointed out. The "Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC, the base was selected in worldwide competition as the best installation in the Marine Corps and received the prestigious Commander-in-Chief’s Award for Installation Excellence. " appears legit based on these[12][13] although the latter is bordering on hagiography so I'm a little leery of considering it a reputable source for much else.

Unfortunately, several other points aren't so good. Comparing his military and civilian bio's makes it obvious his position for the F/A-18 Hornet acquisition is overstated. The only one of his "numerous papers" etc I'm able to find any record of was published in the Marine Gazette. His book is self published, and I'm not finding anything that makes the book notable online.

Recommend deletion. Not only does he not meet verifiable notability guidelines, but this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to pump up book sales.

Disclosure: I'm a liberal Dem, but I really did try to save the article from deletion. I was going to change my vote to neutral until I found out about the IP address and overwrite. Horrorshowj 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science Conference Rankings

Tagged incorrectly as speedy delete for original research, tag removed and now seeking consensus on this being deleted as pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man 07:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, usually original research is just part of an article, whereas here, there is no article, just original research. It also appears to be self-referential. 71.190.2.99 07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speedy delete. I'm the one that tagged it for speedy, but alas, WP:OR isn't a speedy criterion. Maybe it should be when is as blatant and pervasive as it is in this case. The whole blinkin' thing is nothing but original research. Well-meaning, but confusing as heck. Realkyhick 08:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only is it original research, it conceals the methodology (despite appearances to the contrary) by citing nothing. Wikipedia is not a rankings service, although who knows, it might be a revenue stream to explore. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above Q ^{T C} 00:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork of List of computer science conferences. John Vandenberg 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Party

Unreferenced article that may be a hoax (I could find no reliable sources on my own). Even if it does exist, it has no releases as yet so the article is just crystal ballery. Closenplay 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Huon 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently non-existent or out of business (the domain name is available). Certainly unverifiable and potentially zero notability. Maybe it will get off the ground and become famous one day; then it can have an article. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable until references can be provided. Terraxos 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stouffer College House

Dorm on a college campus. Nothing special about the building itself and only assertion of notability of the dorm as a dorm is winning some intramural sports. Contested prod (for lack of notability). DMacks 06:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say merge, but there doesn't seem to be anything here worth merging. Dorms are generally non-notable, so delete unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. The only mentions I find of it in reliable sources are trivial (simply to point out that some or another person is a member) and dependent. Someguy1221 06:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) May as well bundle another UPenn dorm here (only attempt at claimed notabilty is some in-house seminars and a charitable donation to support it) to avert a similar deprod:

DMacks 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content here worth merging. Fails to show multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of the building. There is a "residences" section in the article University of Pennsylvania. Basic (documented) facts could be added to the bare listing there, such as age, number of residents, special programs. Individual buildings at a university usually are not notable enough to have separate articles. Edison 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No good sources demonstrating the notability of the neologism — one is about something different, and another is a Wikipedia mirror — and arguments about its importance to the comic are not substantiated and seem to contradict each other.-Wafulz 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strummer's Law

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Strummer's Law

Contested PROD. Apparent neologism. This term has a mighty ~100 ghits, and most of those are Wikipedia, its mirrors, and people citing Wikipedia. The rest seem to be forums and blogs. Someguy1221 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it were notable, it's not really worthy of a Wikipedia article, is it? It's basically the restatement of someone else's opinion, eh? Calgary 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. maybe merge it with Dorothy Gambrell's article. Trusilver 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, punchline of one comic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Dorothy Gambrell Will ^(talk) 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell, or into Cat and Girl if the term was coined within the comic. Krychek 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer per WP:NEO. Not worth merging because it's not an important aspect of Cat and Girl; like Dhartung says, it's just the punchline to one comic. -- rynne 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Neologism argument is somewhat specious. WP:NEO cautions about verifiability and original research -- neither of which applies here since this is a humorous phrase, and the original source is undeniably known. From WP:NEO itself: Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. None of these reasons applies in this case. Krychek 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But from the first line: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary. From my perspective, WP:NOR certainly applies: "Strummer's Law" is presented as a sociological theory which is not acknowledged by any reliable sources except for the comic where it was coined. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Hence the numerous votes to merge. No one is arguing that it should be kept as its own article. Changing the context via a merge would answer your neologism concerns while retaining an important indicator of the comic's tone and content matter. Krychek 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell. Even though it's only one comic it's an interesting idea which is worth thinking about. I know I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment when I read it. Does it have a parallel in real sociology? I'd bet it does. --Misaf-Keru 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If there's an equivalent theory in sociology, it should be discussed under its real name, not attributed (by a webcomic character) to a guy who died years before the term was coined. And if there's not an equivalent theory in sociology, well, WP:NOR doesn't differentiate for how interesting the original research is.. -- rynne 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply It isn't original research, it's a quote. And if there is an equivalent theory, it should be linked to from whichever article we merge it into. And do you know that Joe Strummer didn't coin it himself? I don't, but it's possible that the webcomic writer did know. And, finally, I don't like your tone. I was only sharing on a talk page that I thought it was interesting. It wasn't meant as a reason to merge the articles. I'm sorry if I haven't learned the rules yet, but it's no reason for veiled insults. --Misaf-Keru 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. I assumed that the statement following your vote was a justification of your vote. I meant no veiled or unveiled personal insult, so I apologize. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cat and Girl. It's one of the central ideas of the comic, and it's not like the article couldn't stand some expansion. --Gwern (contribs) 02:32 29 June 2007 (GMT)
Merge into Cat and Girl or Dorothy Gambrell, but ideally simply pick one and make the rest portals to that article. Could also be linked from the punk rock entry, esp. near the beginning of paragraph 3 of section 5.4 ... this may also give it a chance for greater visibility and thus more informed debate may be had by more folks. It is an interesting and original enough thought to avoid deletion without better research or reason, at any rate, but doesn't deserve its own entry as much as to be included in (an)other(s). Jonaspi 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Jonaspi[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cat and Girl. Relatively central idea of the comic, and that article could do with some expansion itself. OkamiItto 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Just because an expression is new doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. How old does something have to be before it gets in wikipedia? 5 minutes, 5 months, 5 years, 50? --Nyxxxx 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It gets it's own article when it's notable and verifiable, and doesn't simply belong in another article. Someguy1221 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable in that it was published by an outside source. It is notable in that I believe you'll find it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/archives/DEC05/FILM/wildeast.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/strummer-s-law Sorry I don't know how to wikify things. --Nyxxxx 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first of the above links states "Strummer's Law" as "No input, no output"---certainly a completely different meaning than Cat and Girl's definition? -- rynne 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell or Cat and Girl. Though it may not stand on its own as a Wikipedia article, as an idea it does have merit and could be of interest to people unfamiliar with the comic. I would vote to keep the article as-is except that it's in clear violation of policy. A shame, really. 24.19.42.84 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cat and Girl - Demonstrates an important aspect of the style and philosophy of the comic, though not substantial enough for its own entry. DevOhm ^Talk 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Compare to Gary Larsen's "Thagomizer". This may not have come into broad common use yet, but has 112 google hits so far, and seems to have some legs. It should stand and be rechecked in six months to see if it is still in use.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Caknuck 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners

AfDs for this article:

The page asserts no notability, as do none of the related pages. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of "Extinctioners" returns a good deal of material relating to the subject of the article, it doesn't seem terribly obscure (like some other afd candidates), even if it seems to have a rather narrow audience, I don't see it as being any sort of marketing ploy...I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on notability specifically surrounding comic books, but it seems alright to me (I probably sound so naive right now). Calgary 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Keeping the above in mind, I'd have to say that the other articles related to this article don't seem all too neccessary, constituting what I believe is referred to as "fancruft" Calgary 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on AfD'ing them if this one came back as keep, otherwise they would probably fall under an G6 speedy, I think. Kwsn^(Ni!) 07:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might not be the most famous comic of all time, but the article seems to be reasonably researched, and is actually fairly well-written, and seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --Milton 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a big list. The comic is notable enough for a main article and a character article, but an article for every single character seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly needs cleanup. Most characters (if not all) should probably be merged to a single page, but the comic itself is notable. Despite targetting a niche market, it has been consistently sold through mainstream distributors and has been reviewed by a number of credible sources (CBG had an Extinctioners cover at one point). I'll see if I can't scrape up some references. Serpent's Choice 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extinctioners was featured on the cover and reviewed in Comics Buyer's Guide 1379. CBG isn't searchable online, so I'm seeing if I can't find a hard-copy to reference from. It was also reviewed ("missing a little bit but ... a well thought out universe") in CBEM 370, but obviously ezines (even well-established ones) aren't preferred sources. The comic, at least after the Shanda acquisition, has also been distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, which is at least a cut above most furry comics (I'm pretty sure it was never a Previews cover, but that's almost always DC anyway, so isn't a good barometer). Preorder numbers (via CBG) seem to indicate sales of about ~1000 per issue, which is low but not abysmal for an indie. There's some mention of the comic in Erie-area newspapers, although that's likely to be local bias (the author is an Erie resident). Trying to dig up more in between other research and non-Wikipedia life; I've been putting off referencing the actual article because its such a daunting cleanup task due to other problems, but I still think its over the WP:N bar... Serpent's Choice 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless the sources appear in the article, the article fails WP:N. It is the responsibility of those wanting to add or retain material to add sources. People wanting to remove material are under no obligation to prove that none exist. Jay32183 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a single article or delete them. Would suggest a link to Wikifur, which allows more in-depth coverage of the topic. -- Kesh 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reverted my close, as no reliable sources to show notability have been given. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in the article to give real world context. Notability is based on sources. That is, no sources = not notable. Jay32183 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would including portions of an article written about the comic that appeared in the Comicbook Buyer's Guide be sufficient as a "reliable source"? I felt that last time we met all the standards for the article being include, though I note that it has been changed by an outside source recently. The artilce was significantly shorter and direct prior to these last alterations by an outside source. Shawntae Howard

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to merge the information, they can contact me to get the deleted revisions.-Wafulz 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary of Tenjho Tenge

Article is just a plot summary. By design, it violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Confusing Manifestation 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a tricky one, since although it does seem to violate the above policy, the policy does state that "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Since the Plot Summary is summarized (wheels in wheels) in the main article, I think it should be shortened and incorporated into the main article. --Milton 06:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for merge, not keep. Otto4711 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tenjho Tenge. 70.55.86.129 04:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 12:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#PAPER does not override anything else that appears within WP:NOT. Jay32183 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the surface, the article does violate WP:NOT#PLOT for being a mere plot summery. However, there is currently no duplication with any other articles in the article series and the problems with WP:NOT#PLOT this could be addressed by writing the article from an out-of-universe perspective and adding secondary references in accordances with WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article has a section that discusses the plot. Rewriting this article will end up duplicating the main page, except it will then have too much plot. Jay32183 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Tenjho Tenge. This is a derivative re-telling of the story and Wikipedia is not the copyright holder of it. --maclean 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Peter 14:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwayne Buckle

Nonnotable filmmaker (has made one film, no indep. sources showing its notability). He was in the news for getting beat up in Greenwich Village ~~this past week~~ -- that's not enough, either. See WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as director and as a sound engineer and as a media figure. Nawlins facts are not correct. Buckle was assulted and stabbed in Aug 2006 not last week. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (article author)[reply]
- Response Fair enough, but the date change doesn't make him any more notable. NawlinWiki 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no reliable sources to show notability. Perhaps once his documentary comes out, he'll be notable enough for an article. -- Kesh 05:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself says that his only claim to notability is his assault, and I'm pretty sure that being assaulted and appearingon the O'Reilly Factor isn't grounds for a wikipedia article. Calgary 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO otherwise. If his documentary proves notable article may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep saying this. However, Wikipedia is not for the most trivial matters. If you want to change that, suggest policy changes at the Village pump. You can't change policy by making a point on every biographical AfD. -- Kesh 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage, even though the NY Post's style of writing would never cut it here. :o) --EarthPerson 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found discussion in forums about how his attack changed in the media from being an "assault by a group of women" to one by "a roving gang of lesbians". These are not direct quotes on either, but the general idea. Unfortunately these are forums and not an editorial from a good source. Finding one would help greatly. --EarthPerson 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article must be somwhat notable as someone has has vandalized it about six times--The Emperor of Wikipedia 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia gets vandalized, notable or not. -- Kesh 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a self promotion article. The court case in itself should have a page not one person involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.109.222 (talk • contribs) 23:15, July 4, 2007— 24.199.109.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I wrote this article and I am not Dwayne Buckle nor do I have any affliation with him. This is not a self promotion article.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.-Wafulz 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Pro Wrestling (Florida)

Non notable independent wrestling promotion. The only source is the promotion’s official MySpace, and a google search for “Omega Pro Wrestling” and “Omega Pro Wrestling Florida” turn up this article, an Wikipedia article on Kenneth Jenkins (which was deleted in April, recreated a month later, and then deleted again today), and a three videos on YouTube and AOL. The rest of the results are for the Hardy’s old promotion Organization of Modern Extreme Grappling Arts. Nenog 04:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article stub about a non-notable wrestling promotion that not only does not cite sources, but is written in a style that is both speculative, and biased in favor of the promotion in question. This just keeps getting easier and easier... Calgary 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Also, Tkdblckbelt's (the user who created the page) only edits are on this article. So it might be a vanity/self-promotion thing as well. Even if it isn't, it still fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Nikki311 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura

This is a fork from sola scriptura. Does not obviously meet WP:BK. I requested reliable sources to establish its notability (via a prod), but none came. Flex (talk/contribs) 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an interesting book, but I don't see any reason to say that it's notable. Nyttend 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to rectangle, the standard shape for most books. Or seriously, Delete, as I don't see any reviews from reliable sources (zero GNews archive hits). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpeeps

Not a notable site Sycarr 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tim Uppal

The result was no consensus, defaults to keep. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing candidates for election typically (I believe?) aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, and there is little else on the page that is otherwise encyclopedic. Contested prod moved to AfD. Cmprince 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ ~~There are lot of articles that covered his campaigns, which I think makes him barely notable Corpx 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Based on the following arguement Corpx 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of articles about candidates because elections are notable. Insert any random name in Uppal's place, and the level of coverage does not change. Failed political candidates are not inherently notable, and no other claim to notability exists. Resolute 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hear me out. I created the article because anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat (barring some sort of major political re-alignment). He is running in a safe seat, and I created this article because he will be an MP in the future. If it is deleted, it will just get re-created. This is not an article about a failed candidate, but preperation for a future MP. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not a future MP. You may speculate that he will be elected, but that does not automatically elevate him to the House of Commons at some point in the future. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The chances of him not getting elected (provided he survives until the election) are up there with the chances of Mars leaving orbit, but it's still a bit WP:CRYSTAL for me because there is that one in a thousand chance he won't survive. --Charlene 06:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are less notable candidates who run for office entered in Wikipedia. The article just needs to be sourced and possibly expanded. He appears to have enough notability to be accepted. Jjmillerhistorian 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThe article now has sources. Jjmillerhistorian 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a multiple candidate who is almost certain to be elected at the next election, however if for some unlikely reason he is not elected then delete would probably be apporpriate at that time. Davewild 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep weak because no sources are provided. I'm sure all the good things about him are true, but this is a bio article.DGG 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThe article now has sources. Jjmillerhistorian 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Article needs sources. Callelinea 04:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he wins office, not just a nomination, then he clears the notability bar for elected officials and this article can be recreated. Canuckle 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elected politicians in significant offices yes, candidates no. Deiz talk 13:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because someone is not elected to an office does not make them non-notable. Jjmillerhistorian 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. But on the same basis, a failed candidate is not automatically notable either. Failed candidates that have articles should be notable for other reasons. If their failed elections runs are their only claim to fame, then the article should be deleted. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes no sense to delete now and re-create after the next elections. --Qyd 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to keep. You can WP:USERFY it or just copy the content elsewhere. Corpx 01:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you figure a more complicated way? vote stays. --Qyd 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep this biography just on the premise that he lost 2 elections as a Federal Conservative / Canadian Alliance candidate in Alberta, regardless there is a 99% possibility he will win this seat, I will personally eat every sock in my sock drawer and post the video to You Tube if he looses, I'm that sure he will win this time. --Cloveious 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed candidates are not inherently notable, and do not meet WP:BIO. His stint as a radio host has the potential to make him noteworthy, but there is nothing in the article that suggests that is the case. As for the assertions on this page that "anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat" and so forth, since when do the speculation, hunches, predictions, guesses and offers-to-eat-socks of a small group of Wikipedia editors trump WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL? Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, unreleased software. NawlinWiki 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spigit

It hasn't even been launched, and there's no evidence that reliable third-party sources have covered it. The prod was disputed with the edit summary "Clarified the launch status of spigit.", though the edit just consisted of moving the mention of the beta launch date. ShadowHalo 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement - "Creators can gain visibility from all types of participants" - Borderline speedy deletion material here. Corpx 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This might have been eligible for CSD A7 regardless. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3G Studios

Blatant spam/conflict of interest, as noted in a recent WP:COIN report. See the article history: author and article title are the same. Article has no sources. Shalom ^Hello 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that they've made 2 PSP games - SWAT and stacked. Most gaming sites have pages for these games and hence I think the creator is notable Corpx 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam - Jet123 (Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom by Shalom, and Jet123. Bearian 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam and conflict of interest. Acalamari 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Collegary

I contested a PROD tagging of this article. The PRODder called it "100% hoax", but based on the author's contribution log, I think that's unlikey. He might not be notable anyway. Shalom ^Hello 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete band for which this person is a "drummer" doesn't seem to exist. The article for the band, Aero, is being prodded. No evidence that any of this exists.--Ispy1981 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles - Absolutely nothing on these guys on a google search, except wiki mirrors. What a ruse ! Corpx 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's not notable, and neither is the band. Acalamari 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Aero page is a complete hoax; they have never charted. Chubbles 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QWHIP

Non-notable internet forum per WP:WEB; not in Alexa top 100,000, no external coverage per WP:RS. Crystallina 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article history reveals a conflict of interest. User:Qwhipster has no edits except to this article. Shalom ^Hello 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO in that it is very non-notable & has no independent media mentions anywhere Corpx 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, per request of author of this version of the article. NawlinWiki 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. Sheffield

Originally created by Ccsheffield (who is the subject of the article) it was deleted per author request. Ccsheffield then created the sockpuppets Koganuts, JuniorMetro, Infowingman, and Acespacecase to create numerous word-for-word copies of the deleted article. The duplicates have since been turned into redirects. The subject herself doesn't appear notable having (according to IMDB) appeared in one episode of According to Jim and two small roles in two small films. None of the other credits listed in the article have any sources to verify them. IrishGuy ^talk 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pear author request, assuming that User:Ccsheffield is indeed the master of those sockpuppets. Resolute 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, regular delete for lack of notability. Resolute 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, I reverted sheffield's edits because sock puppetry is not proven. Delete as a non-notable singer/extra Corpx 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, no checkuser has been run...but the fact that these new accounts were all created to only make edits to this article and recreate it word-for-word from the deleted article surely points towards socks. I left COI warnings on various talk pages and none of them stepped forward to claim that they weren't socks...they simply continued removing the COI tag. IrishGuy ^talk 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. I did revert the apparent author's removal of the AfD notice. --健次(derumi)^talk 08:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an author request for deletion of the article. Speedy delete? --健次(derumi)^talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCORE Stove

No context for article on nn product, with no sources. Article was recreated after a blatant advertising CSD, with the exact same text, including the old CSD notice. MSJapan 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable product - As per above, no notable mentions anywhere Corpx 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not encyclopedic. kingboyk 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women

Basically a mirror of information from FHM. Wikipedia is not a mirror or indiscriminate collection of information. Wafulz 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A copyvio to boot. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12, per discussion. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about including the URL it was copied from in the tag? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Doublechecked the site, and you're right, the G12 doesn't apply. I still stand by a delete though, per WP:LIST. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site?! FHM is a magazine. You know, paper. I'm not sure this is a copyvio (it might be, it might not) but I'm deleting it anyway as unencyclopedic. --kingboyk 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not good for Wikipedia. Jet123 (Talk) 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka (soap opera)

No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The saints and the sinners. Kevin 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Shalom ^Hello 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, speedy if possible. This is utter WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above.--Ispy1981 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like somebody just started this up, as there are no independent corroboration anywhere. Corpx 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. StudierMalMarburg 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Buble

Serious WP:BLP concerns. Article is about a single highly embarassing incident in a living person's life - unlikely to ever have more material let alone become a valid biographical article. The details are really just titillation and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper... WjBscribe 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - major BLP nightmare. Totally NN individual. Non-encyclopedic - Alison ☺ 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mostly the same reasons as Alison. If his issue turns into a Supreme Court case, we'll talk, but for now there's no reason that it should even have hung around this long. Trusilver 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didnt think this could be real, but it is!. However, sleeping with one's dog does not make one notable Corpx 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability only in a constituency's minds. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Come on?! This is 2 things: 1) A major BLP vio as Alison stated, and 2) Major nonsense. —« ANIMUM » 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away (Movie)

I have been researching this article extensively and I have determined that it is one of two things: either it is a hoax or it is a movie that is being made by the article creator. Internet research shows up no evidence that this movie exists except for the external link cited. The same for Joshua Stallings Film Co. and Jayess Ent. Productions. Neither of the companies the author cited exist. I have backed up this by checking internet sources exhaustively and by calling the state of California to confirm that there is no business registered under either of these names.

The author himself had an article that was CSD'd a few days back for similar reasons and he himself twice attempted to remove delete tags from this article. Note that the author's name is also the same name as the movie's star,director, producer, et al.

Considering the circumstances, I am nominating this article for deletion under WP:NOTFILM, WP:NOR and WP:COI. Trusilver 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... although he is currently blocked, the author would like to express his objection to the deletion of his own page and presumably this one...at least that's the impression I got when he vandalized my user page. Trusilver 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability to pass WP:NOTFILM. Nice research work by the nom. Kevin 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, an uncited article for an entirely non-notable flim of which the writer, director and starring actor all happen to have the same name as the user who created the article...this doesn't take a genius. Calgary 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a phone call to the state of California. Good research by the nom, but unnecessary effort for something as obviously non-notable as this. 172.209.244.244 03:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was overkill, I know. But I don't like to get caught with my pants down, so to speak. I'd rather do too much research than not enough. I wanted this to be a slam dunk rather than a real debate. Trusilver 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is clearly COI, has no notability. It's as if the author is trying to promote this film via Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slam dunk it is.DGG 04:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. --Milton 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 13:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen

Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Alaska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arizona's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arkansas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss California's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Connecticut's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Florida's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Kansas Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nebraska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nevada's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Oklahoma's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Pennsylvania's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Tennessee's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Texas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misguided attempt at creating articles for non-notable state-level teen beauty contests. Each article consists solely of "The Miss X's Outstanding Teen pageant is the competition that selects the representative for the state of X in the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant," followed by the exact same two paragraphs describing the national pageant. Merely being associated with the state competitions of the Miss America pageant does not make these pageants notable and none of the articles have a single citation. I tried to look for sources but found only the most trivial crap imaginable. I do have to admit, though, that I had only gotten through searching for about half of these pageants, realized I had put far more work into this than the articles' creator and decided "fuck it." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, does not meet WP:BIO Tatonka79 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created the day before this comment. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom Bigdaddy1981 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt thoroughly~~ per nom. This is listcruft of the worst kind and is deletable under both WP:BIO and WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - remarks to salt seem inappropriate here. There is no history of recreation or vandalism associated with this ceries of articles or by the creator. Salting these would seem to be a contradiction to WP:SALT. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I withdrawal my request to salt. My reason for suggesting it in the first place is how articles of this nature have an above average tendency to come back long after they have been originally deleted. Trusilver 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact because they are not sourced and aren't well written is no reason to delete them. It simply means that I've had other priorities I've been working on. You're clearly ignoring the sources at Miss California's Outstanding Teen and haven't done much google searching [14], [15]. I know that not much comes up for some but I'm picking up much more on Factiva (which I can only access through university so you can't search it). I would like to add that the nominator's comments are inflammatory. PageantUpdater 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'd only checked a few of the links to pull those diffs up... didn't have time to check the rest. Perhaps if the nominator was so keen to get these deleted, he should have bothered putting some effort in to checking whether he was being sensible. PageantUpdater 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you had put some effort into researching before deciding to create multiple articles by copypasting the exact same text into them, you would have seen that the articles do not have nontrivial mentions in reliable sources. Do you have a basis for your statement that I was "so keen to get these deleted"? I don't understand the vitriol coming from you. Unless you copypaste differently than I do, these articles did not take you that long to create; so it's not like that much work is being lost. If these pageants have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (which neither I nor, apparently, anyone else have been able to find) there's nothing to stop you from using those sources to write articles about these pageants. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time spent was in inputting names, ages, titles and other information. It might not seem time consuming, but it is. PageantUpdater 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the state articles. All those articles mention is basically just that "This pageant was held @ ___ and ___ won". Corpx 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lack of content isn't in itself a reason for deletion. PageantUpdater 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the newspaper articles! Corpx 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Otto4711 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all per WP:BIO, and WP:NOT. They aren't even real articles, much of the content is the same for each of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT JFW | T@lk 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Weak Delete with no salt~~. This should not be salted because see potential notability, especially if one or more of the state winners becomes famous. The current articles should be merged back into the main article (which would produce little changes to the main article), and the most notable states could have their own section. The articles do not currently meet WP:BIO or WP:NOT standards. PageantUpdater should source a single state article to show how good a state article could become if he/she wants any chance to see this AfD fail. The tone in the nomination for this AfD is very unpleasant and has uncivil portions. Do you realize that we are all volunteers, and that the articles were created in good faith? Royalbroil 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I hadn't noticed that this organization is sister company to the Miss America Organization. It likely is or may soon be considered a major stepping stone to the very notable Miss America competition. I am satisfied with the sourcing on the Miss California article that articles with reliable sources can be made if given time. We need to give the contributors time to flesh out the articles. Many solid articles have started as a stub. Royalbroil 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The citations in the Miss California's Outstanding Teen article do not support the text of that article. They are merely citations to local newspapers saying, essentially, "Local Girl Goes to Pageant." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fifth (last) citation no longer works, but it had been linked to an article about the twin girls. It proved that they had won the pagent, which is good to source. None of the other text in the article appears to be very controversial, so sourcing it would not be necessary IMHO. Royalbroil 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That last statement doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Sourcing of articles -- period/full-stop -- is a requirement, not sourcing of controversial bits. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I have suggested that the material is not likely to be challenged. Royalbroil 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, the material does not necessarily need to be cited, but all information in the article should be verifiable from reliable sources. Only the information in the charts is sourced. No one can find any sources to support the information in the actual article. That the only sources that mention the pageant concern the winner, her high school, hometown, hobbies, etc., this means that the text cannot be expanded beyond the copypasted material (which is primarily about the national pageant anyway). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable competitions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[C]learly notable"? If they were, you'd think reliable sources would be rather thick on the ground, but they're not. Wikipedia doesn't really do faith-based notability. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. There are lots of "contests" be they beauty, talent, sports, "outstanding teen", "congeniality" whatever -- basically, other than a few, as in the top ones, they are all not notable. These included. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wouldn't the official teen pageant for Miss America be either #1 or #2 in the list of "top ones"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These pageants are the "Teen" pageants of the Miss America series and are therefore clearly notable. They are in slow development which is why content is still weak and why many of the state's articles are not yet created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Let's suppose that this is in some way notable. Does that notability mean it has to have fifty articles, one for each state? That is absolutely absurd. At the absolute most, it should have a single article. Trusilver 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the national competition is notable, but not the states. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a relatively new pageant system started by the Miss America Organization for contestants ages 13 to 17. Keep in mind that the national Miss Ameirca's Outstanding Teen Pageant is in only its third year with the national pageant to be held in August 2007. If this is to be a true encyclopedia than this information about the state preliminaries and the very accomplished young women who take part in this program should be includedin Wikipedia.
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason for inclusion when there aren't sufficient sources to do a good article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment already we've had another crossover between MAOTeen and MTUSA (Wisconsin actually) which bolsters the aritcles' claim to notability. There is a need for individual articles so that each titleholder and results can be listed. PageantUpdater 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "crossover" would not be a reason to have a WP article on this topic. If the real reason to have the article is to create a list of each state pageant winner, that would probably not be sufficient to justifying keeping either. A list on Wikipedia should contain members that either have articles about them or should be things/people about which Wikipedia should have articles. It is doubtful that each teen state pageant winner should have her own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden_Jackson, regarding state winners for the more notable Miss Teen USA pageant. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would support certain aspects of this being folded into the Outstanding Teen article, but the fact that these teens won a mildly notable competition doesn't mean that they themselves become notable. This is no different than school articles where we are continuously deleting the names of the so-called 'star' football players that list themselves in the article in connection with winning some obscure title. And besides, as for the girls - one event does not necessarily confer notability. Trusilver 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be folded into the main article? I couldn't find anything that was not already there. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObiterDicta, I honestly don't know :), this is me trying to reach a consensus through middle ground that I'm not sure is really there. I suppose it wouldn't be beyond reason to list current titleholders with the main article. I am absolutely one hundred percent against an article for every state, because while being a titleholder confers some vague notability on these girls, I see no reason to list past titleholders per WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What cannot be folded into any article are the lists of titleholders and results for the national pageant. These are highly important, especially as there are now crossovers. PageantUpdater 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are highly important How? And to whom? --Calton | Talk 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is factual if somewhat trival information, but if people are intersted in this kind of information or topic they have a place to find it. I think this is the type of topic that wikipedia is best made for. Who knows 20 30 years from now a future US President may have got her start as Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen Smith03 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I obviously agree with the first half of your statement, but the second part is clearly crystal ballism. However what you said is right, Wikipedia is an ideal place for collecting and presenting information of this nature, and whilst I suspect the topic is of little interest to many of those here, those interested in pageants would, I think, find this information highly useful. Isn't that what an encyclopedia (particularly one that is not paper) about? PageantUpdater 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to keep things in perspective for those claiming the state pageants are not notable, a Google news searched aimed at picking up all Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageant-related articles picked up about 126 hits [16]. Extending this into the archive shows about 800 hits [17]. I would write more state articles using these references (because information for some states is thinner on the ground than others) but I'm loathe to until this is closed. I hope that the closing admin considers that some of the existing articles, particularly Californias, are well sourced. PageantUpdater 11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment considering wikipedia has articles on fictional people and things that treat them like they are real. I see no reason not to have articles about real events.Smith03 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that, then you best have a read of this. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling miss "outstanding teen' will generate a certain number of Ghits, no question there. The issue is whether any of those will be an article about the pageant or simply an item in a local paper about a local girl who went to a pageant and isn't that great and this is where she goes to school, etc. None of the text in the Miss California article is sourced; the only citations appear in the chart of the winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just supposing there is a credible source (which in the event of Miss whatever Arizona, there isn't. I checked and all I got was a lot of local coverage and her self-congratulatory homepage), these pages still don't belong here. I think we have already verified that the primary purpose of these pages is the tables to document the current and past winners of said titles. However, to quote WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Trusilver 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More minor state-level beauty pageant trivia clogging up the InnerTubes of Wikipedia. A lot of handwaving passing for arguments to keep. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about creating a page for each year's national contest 2006 Miss America's Outstanding Teen and than list the 50 state winners on that page .If a person wanted to see who the past Miss Ohio was they can just go thru the various yearsSmith03 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's WP:LISTCRUFT. Or, more specifically, from Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists):

Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

So, because the state winners don't have articles on them (and don't look likely to have such articles in this lifetime) it is inappropriate to have a list of state winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simply because the girls aren't likely to have individual articles that the lists are useful and important. One of hte arguments made when all the individual articles on the Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates were deleted was that the state lists were there to record their names. And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous. PageantUpdater 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wiki policy WP:SAL: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Is there any reasonable expectation that all of these girls (or even a few of them) are on the cusp of becoming notable thus warranting inclusion?
Not that it particularly matters, but FWIW, WP:SAL is a guideline, not a policy. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion based on them not being notable enough for their own articles is in direct violation of WP:SAL. Wikipedia policy is just that, policy.Trusilver 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in those discussions and it is unlikely I would have made that argument. Despite what Calton has so aptly termed "handwaving" it has not been demonstrated that these contestants should be covered at all on Wikipedia. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous. See proof by assertion. The reason sources are required is because they are used to write the article. So if they aren't being used to write the article (and do not have material in them that could contribute to the article), they're not demonstrating the notability of the subject of the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
What I was thinking was that if each National contest had an article like Miss America 2007 so for example Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007. You would be able to give information about the event and also list the names of each state rep. You would not need 50 or 51 separate articles just one for each year. As for as it not be noteworthy there are a lot of articles and pages in wikipedia that probably are equally trivial that are left alone and what is silly to some is a big deal to others. I am simply trying to suggest away to keep the information but perhaps do on less pages. Do Bo Duke or James T. Kirk need their own articles? Smith03 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that wouldn't record each state's history which is what is so important. Anyway, I have an idea... PageantUpdater 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voila, problem solved. I hope this is a compromise decision we can all be happy with. Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. If everyone is happy I will endorse deleting the individual articles. PageantUpdater 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not I was coming back to suggest something like that as well put all the states on one page. I think that is a reasonable compromiseSmith03 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still have issues with the notability of the individual winners, I think that this is an acceptable compromise if it can result in a consensus. Trusilver 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this reasonable compromise too. Royalbroil 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fifteen minutes of fame aren't. >Radiant< 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Question" Is there an expection that each winner is supposed to have her own article? Because I don't think winners should have their own article, unless they go on to do something "important" but I support a list of all the past state winners. Smith03 15:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echelon (warez)

Non-notable, most of content is nonsense about something other than what the page is supposedly about. Jeff 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious claims at best, and the only thing remotely close to a reliable source is a single mention in a list of similar groups in a DOJ press release. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Somewhat notable for their "warez skills" Corpx 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep back when Dreamcast was new, Echelon was very popular. Almost every game was cracked by them. Second of all, I'm pretty damned sure there is a "list of warez groups" article around here somewhere, I saw it a few days ago. These guys are one of the most well known, if not THE most well known, Sega Dreamcast crackers. At least merge their info into the warez groups list. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This group gained a lot of press attention during the DoJ raids in 2004, and were rather notorious before that time. Ante lan ^talk 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worth considering whether precedent was set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEViANCE (2nd nomination), where we deleted a much better-known group. Heather 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These may not be satisfactory, but there are sources which discuss this (although they do not focus on Echelon, hence my comment that these may not be satisfactory): USA Today, the DoJ, and MSNBC via the AP Wire. Ante lan ^talk 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend reading the first nomination for Deviance. the 2nd one had barely any input, most likely from people who don't know anything about them. They were throwing around guidelines for deletion anyways. Read the first nomination, where there is alot more discussion, and mostly keep votes. To say that these guys are not notable is silly. Search Deviance + warez in google. many many hits. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but seems very much POV. Clean it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable sources mention the article subject in passing. I don't think the number of search engine hits is relevant in this case. Kevin 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Echelon was the target of a major DOJ investigation due to their prominence in the warez industry. The group is infamous and notable, especially in the global circle of piracy. The sources provided above go to show this. --74.73.16.230 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sumnjim and 74.73.16.230. Also noteworthy is that Echelon was one of the main reasons the Dreamcast failed commercially. --Darkstar 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of warez groups - a paragraph is all that is required here. Not sure about the link to cracked torrent d/loads either... does this violate WP:COPY? EyeSerene^TALK 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus bordering on keep. The usefullness of the list as a navigation aid isn't really refuted, and "it's crufty" is vague. Whether it's discriminate or not hasn't resolved to a consensus. Cheers, Wily D 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States

Fails WP:NOT#INFO, This page is an indiscriminate collection of information ChrisLamb 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one I call for a Keep. This list is not as indiscriminate as one would let on (it's wall to wall malls), though its criteria for inclusion aren't well established. It's also incomplete (I can think of a few malls that can be added). It is my opinion that this does not fall in the constraints of being listcruft; or rather, it seems to fall into the constraints of WP:LIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs)

As stated below, inclusion would be hard to pigeonhole. Is a lifestyle center a "mall"? (Personally, I would call that concept "crap" and not a mall, but that's just me.) What about outlet malls? Should we split it into List of lifestyle centers in the United States, List of power centers in the United States, List of outlet malls in the United States, etc.? ...But wait! Would an outlet-hybrid mall (think Mills Corporation) be an outlet mall or just a shopping mall? Or both? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if, at that point, we'd be splitting hairs, but that depends on what a lifestyle center or power center would be defined as. Outlet malls are fairly foregone for that, but...well, perhaps it's another one to put out in projectland. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power centers we could probably leave out entirely, they're a dime a dozen (think super-sized strip malls). When I compiled a list of malls in the USA (which, per the struck-out comment below, took a long time), I found myself often questioning whether or not such-and-such was a mall by definition. Splitting this by state might not be a bad idea -- I've already made List of shopping malls in Michigan, which I can guarantee is complete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- splitting into malls by state is a good idea it would be much easier on the reader then this <hyperbole>endless list</hyperbole> ChrisLamb 01:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, even as a mall-geek myself. Yikes. Not only is this list far from complete (believe me -- I actually composed a list of every shopping mall, lifestyle center, and outlet mall in the U.S.; it took months), the list is also horribly unmanageable. I mean, is a lifestyle center a "mall"? Do strip malls count? Outlet malls? What about partially enclosed strip malls? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete for now - too many messages discussing what is the definition of a "mall" instead of, are most malls notable enough for inclusion? Tatonka79 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all malls are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, but I'm confident that the definition of a "mall" can be straightened out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral for now, pending further discussion. I would be willing to help define this list, maybe even split it by region, and define criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Eddie 01:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ The traditional - if this is the right term - definition of a mall is an enclosed indoor environment lined by open storefronts, usually with at least two anchor stores. If that is enforced, then it might be worth keeping. No power centers, no strip malls (those are "shopping centers"), no lifestyle centers (unless enclosed per above). Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle centers, by definition, are unenclosed. Also, there're plenty of outdoor malls (see Bal Harbour Shops as an example -- it's basically an ordinary mall, minus a roof). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, at least for climates that can support it, one can have an open mall. I recall from living in Atlanta that Lenox Square Mall became noteworthy as one of the first malls when the originally open-courtyard shopping center gained a roof in the '60's, the enclosed air-conditioned environment being the critical factor. I'm not convinced that a lifestyle center must necessarily lack a roof: a visit to Buffalo might turn up one that's covered. We're straying from the discussion here. ~~Weak Keep~~, provided criteria are stated and enforced. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking like The Block at Orange, or something like that? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lenox Square gained a roof (essential in Georgia), The Block at Orange lost its roof (optional in California). So I now lean to delete on the grounds that such a list will lead to long discussions like this, only angry. Or maybe TPH can just upload his list, so it can finally have a home. Acroterion _(talk) 02:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's yet another in a long list of...erm...long lists that serve no purpose whatsoever. While not quite listcruft, it still falls very firmly into the headlights of WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps to direct people to the articles we already have on, say, shopping malls in the United States? Just because its contents do not interest you does not mean that it has no purpose. Rebecca 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have written a few proposed inclusion criteria at User:TenPoundHammer/List of shopping malls sandbox. Please check out this page and offer any suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can support TPH's definitions and criteria. Acroterion _(talk) 03:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor tweaks just as you posted that comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. It addresses the "indiscriminate" objection in the nom. Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm all for this. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennisthe2. This list is different. Don't ask me to explain why. JJL 03:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under WP:INTERESTING, which is not a good "keep" criterion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it should be a "list of lists of malls" - given that there is a lot of states in the US and there are >40000 malls in the country.Ga rr ie 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me it's a useful list and not listcruft. --Caldorwards4 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I made fun of the author and the concept earlier this month (in a debate over an article I had drawn up) I've always liked the lists of malls, both existing and defunct. The impact of the shopping mall on the retail industry and on American society has been tremendous. Malls are, in effect, new cities located miles from the downtown business district of an existing town. TenPound has documented the phenomenon quite well. Mandsford 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Delete These lists are making wikipedia into the next yellow pages, however official policy is pretty vague in this area as inclusion in this list isnt very loose. I would think a policy clarification is in order to address the growing number of lists Corpx 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malls by themselves are not notable - they're just buildings. Just because a building is used by the public to conduct business doesnt give it notability. This is a slippery slope that could lead to List of Chevy dealers in the US or List of Gas Stations in the US since an ordinary gas station has about as much notability as an ordinary mall. The number of malls from that list that dont have a page further illustrates that this is a list of not-notable things Corpx 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~(edit: Since some less notable malls have been removed from the list, I looked at the history and note that until Mar 3, 2007 [18] the introduction said only notable malls were on the list. I restored that qualifier, and now call for keeping it a a better defined list. ~~as an indiscriminate list of information, since there are 46,000 of them, most of them non-notable, and all it would be is a directory, which Wikipedia is not.~~ I would have no objection to a list of regional or superregional malls, as defined in Shopping mall per the International Council of Shopping Centers [19], since they are more notable, and there are under 1200 of them, rather than the thousands that would be in this list. ~~There is nothing in this article to prevent adding the smallest neighborhood shopping center.~~ Edison 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, if you don't disagree with the existence of this list (rather with its present content) then why are you voting delete instead of cleanup? Listing malls we will never have articles on is kind of pointless, as I noted below, but it's pretty stupid to shoot subject-specific index pages all the same. Rebecca 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Comment (I like www.Televisionwithoutpity.com, where people are banned for starting comments with "Um.") The list ~~still says~~ formerly said in the introduction "This is a list of shopping malls in the United States of America. There are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S." with the clear implication that there is was no reason not to add even the least notable neighborhood strip mall. The discussion page talks about restricting it to notable malls. I would suggets restricting it to regional (over 400,000 sq ft of GLA with certain other features) or superregional (over 800,000 sq ft) as well as historic malls and any malls which clearly meet WP:N and WP:A. ~~As is , it is~~ It was clearly an "indiscriminate" list purely because it ~~has~~ had no stated basis for leaving off insignificant malls. ~~Fix it, and I could vote to keep. Then it would be~~ Now it is a different article. It is not just a matter of me having to edit it. We do not have to go in and fight a continuing battle with creators of an article to change it into something which is congruent with Wikipedia guidelines. And people keep creating stubs with no references and no basis (such as GLA for judging the significance of a mall. Edison 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is (or should be) an index of our articles on shopping malls in the United States. Many of these articles are either indisputedly notable, or have been the subject of an AfD and come out the other end intact. It should thus help the reader navigate between them. Listcruft? We're an encyclopedia - it's pretty silly to go and shoot the indexes. Rebecca 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items on the list have pages just because they're a mall, that's it. There is nothing more notable about them other than being a mall. Mall of America is notable because of its history/size/attractions. Eastwood Mall (Birmingham), the first item on that list, does not stand out in any way and I dont see any kind of notability attached to it. The Woodlands Mall is one closer to me geographically thats another example of an article about a mall that's not notable than any other mall. Corpx 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it would seem that other people do not agree with you. Many, if not most all of the existing articles on this list have already been nominated for deletion, due to the efforts of a small clique of users, and have subsequently been kept. Thus, if the articles exist, and are going to continue to exist, what is the sense in deleting an index to them? Rebecca 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the number of people in agreement/disagreement should matter, but rather which side is accurately citing policy. Corpx 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? "We must delete index pages because I think the articles on the list should have been deleted when others disagreed" is not policy. Rebecca 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT dictates against lists of "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons. Even though it doesnt state explicitly, I derive that it is also against loosely assosiated topics such as buildings. Malls are all just buildings, except they share a common purpose, which is a loose criteria criteria for inclusion. Corpx 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with this list article. AfD is not cleanup, and "indiscriminate collection of information" is possibly the most annoying phrase ever used here. —Xezbeth 07:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase is also part of Official Wikipedia Policy Corpx 09:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is not useful, and not encyclopedic. And for the record, I'm originally from Iowa, and by checking the malls listed in Iowa, it's missing quite a few, most notably the Merle Haye Mall, which was named after the first Iowan who died in WW2, the Coral Ridge Mall, and the Cross Roads mall, just to name a few off the top of my head. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? It is a list of notable shopping malls. Thus it isn't missing the malls you mention, it is useful, and it is encyclopedia, seeing as it's acting as an index to the articles we already have. Rebecca 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. 1) The article says List of shopping malls in the United States. It does not say List of notable shopping malls in the United States. 2) Please tell me why The Omni Centre (dead mall) is listed under Iowa, is a dead mall (ie: no longer exists), and why the biggest mall in Iowa (Merle Haye Mall), which, as I said, is named after the first Iowan killed in WW2, is not on the list. Please please please tell me how a crappy podunk mall in Council Bluffs which doesn't even exist is notable and why the Merle Haye Mall is not? Where the heck is the inclusion criteria for these malls? This is a bunch of original crap, and it's indiscriminate. Delete this garbage. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, then the appropriate step is to cleanup the article. Remove the non-notable malls, make it explicitly clear that this is for notable malls. Killing the index for the sake of killing the index makes no sense whatsoever. Rebecca 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created the article, you want it kept....YOU fix it. Since I feel it should be deleted, I am not going to waste my time spending hours upon hours of fixing your mess, because you just through a bunch of random malls into the lists. (ie: indiscriminate). --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: You never answered my question why a podunk, closed down mall is on the list (ie: notable in your opinion), but not the biggest, most notable mall in Iowa? Secondly, if these malls are so notable, how come I see so many red links? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article. I didn't throw a bunch of random malls in the list. I didn't add the red links, and I'm not saying that every mall on this list is necessarily notable. I'm saying that this list should act as every other list of its nature does; act as an index to our articles on notable malls in the United States. All these notability issues are irrelevant; if the mall is not notable, it shouldn't be on this list. Rebecca 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did create the article. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you should do...remove all the red linked malls, change the opening sentence to somehow introduce what the inclusion criteria is. ie: What made this mall get on the list. If you have specific, definied criteria for inclusion, then it wouldn't be indiscriminate. I would also change the name of it to List of notable malls in the United States (or better yet, use TenPoundHammer's proposed idea). FYI the National Mall isn't even on the list. True, it's in D.C, and there isn't a list for malls in DC, however the master list is for the whole United States. How could this mall not be on the list either? I don't even know if this list can be manageable...it's almost in disrepair. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should do this, yes. We're discussing here, however, the question of whether the article should remain on Wikipedia. You've outlaid a fairly simple process by which the issues with this article could be cleaned up. There is no great urgency that this be done right now. Rebecca 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category for inclusion has been just whether a building is or was a mall. Due to how common malls are these days, I would argue that this inclusion criteria is very loose. We could see a List of Police Stations next or List of Flea Markets next. Corpx 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply nonsense - we have no (or very few) articles on police stations or flea markets. We do, however, have quite a sizable number of articles on shopping malls in the United States. There is absolutely no reason why we should hot have an index pointing to those articles. Rebecca 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way the mall articles are written (they just describe the mall/stores in it), one could easily create articles about police stations and then make a list of them. Malls are not inherently notable, and this is a list about them. With this precedent, any inherently non-notable building could have an article and a list which groups them. Corpx 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have many articles on shopping malls. This will not change. This article simply provides a useful index to the articles we do have. It says nothing about whether we should or should not have any more than the ones we already do. Rebecca 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone even looking at my proposed criteria? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the red links on that page are there because the article was deleted. I'm going to put some more up for AFD which are there solely on the notion that malls are inherently notable. Corpx 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Will ^(talk) 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Sufficiently notable malls get articles, and can easily be listed in their respective mall categories. No need for a massive list. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed criteria for inclusion of malls, please read. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are you attempting to create a specific set of criteria for all malls, to be adopted as policy/guideline? Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually trying to establish criteria for whether a mall should be on this very list. (Note: This is NOT a proposed guideline for individual mall articles!) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We went through the battle a few months ago of trying to create a guideline for notability of malls, WP:MALL, but too many people on Wikipedia feel it is instruction creep to add new guidelines and it is presently labelled "rejected" (or sometimes "essay"). Anyone who wants to create a new one is welcome to start afresh or to incorporate any good parts from the old one. Not everything called a mall is notable enough to have an article or even to be in a list. We do not need a list which includes grubby little neighborhood strip mall, power centers, or decrepit malls which only serve a small town, any more than Wikipedia should have a List of mailboxes or a List of gas stations. Edison 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okie. Well, it looks fairly good as a start. Perhaps a little more work in terms of rigorous definitions for each category of mall, but if something like this is applied to the list I may be persuaded to alter my recommendation. Better still, perhaps the list should be broken up into sub-lists .. as stated previously .. this list has the potential to become enormous. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep categorization and inclusion has been clearly specified and notability has been established. By definition, all of the articles with links are notable shopping malls. Alansohn 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because I couldn't stand it any longer, I went through every state on the list and removed ANY AND ALL red links, along with malls that did not have any links. It would take too much time to fact check every link to see what should be kept/removed myself, so to keep it short I just removed all the extra stuff. If there is a mall that isn't on the list and is notable/has an article, feel free to add it. That at least makes it somewhat more managable. It still needs a rewrite that determines inclusion in the list. I don't know if it will survive AfD but it's at least in better shape than what it was. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, wouldnt a category be better suited since only the ones with article are listed? Have a [[:Category:Malls in <State>]] category and a Category:Malls in the United States that encompasses all the states? Corpx 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping_malls_in_the_United_States --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article itself says, "There are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S." That's too long for a list. As noted above, there's already a category; let's not be redundant. There are a few advantages to selecting a category as the way to move forward with this information:
Avoids redlinked entries.

Easier to manage--if you're looking at a mall article, you can tell right away if it's in the category.

If we ever support automatic intersecting categories, it would be easy to find all malls in a specific state or founded in a particular year.

Matchups 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source has the potential to be an encyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and enyclopedic list. --musicpvm 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above, but probably it should only include the 2 or 3 most important malls (and maybe 1 or 2 historical) per state and keep therest only in the appropriate category.--JForget 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be too narrow in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at the actual list, and not the title. This is not an indiscriminate list, and it contain information which would be very hard or impossible to do in a category, matching the malls with the towns--this is more important than in some other instances, because the two names are rarely the same & almost all of them are in suburbs. If it looks to long, the sections can be made collapsable. NOT PAPER, and we should take full advantage of that. DGG 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it is not an indiscriminate list is why it should be deleted. If these malls are notable then they are in Category:Shopping malls in the United States. In fact the introduction for this list implies that only the articles included in this list are notable and the the other articles in Category:Shopping malls in the United States are not notable. That is totally wrong. If there is an article then it is notable. Inclusion in this list does not make the mall notable. Delete this article and keep the category. Vegaswikian 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. I agree that guidelines are needed, but with guidelines this could be cleaned up to become a good list. If one was forced to use categories, it would be very hard to find any information, and many of the categories, like this list, are incomplete. Metallic95 User Page | Talk 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is keeps. this shows historically shopping malls in the us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 414ronald (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Caknuck 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Oregon

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Oregon

Should be deleted because does not meet Wikipedia:Schools or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Many of these schools may be notable, but this seems to be an attempt at listing every single school in Oregon, and 95% of high schools do not meet the preceding criteria for notability. Tatonka79 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NOT#INFO ChrisLamb 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Its only failing compared to other list of schools articles is the number of redlinks, and that's not a failing for this type of article. Wikipedia:Schools is defunct and not valid as a rationale for deletion. I'm also noting this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for those with more familiarity with the subject to chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping for an unbiased vote - not now if we get mostly school contributors...Tatonka79 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's not a vote or a straight headcount, its a debate that attempts to reach a community consensus. The closing admin will weigh all the arguments, not just the "votes". Latr, Katr 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Katr. How could you expect to have a credible decision process, without inviting those most experienced with/devoted to school-related articles to express their opinions? This comment makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the nomination. Tatonka, why would you want to exclude (or avoid informing) those WikiProjects? -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine how the entire Oregon educational system could be non-notable, so a list of its high schools seems quite appropriate. Someguy1221 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stable, well-maintained, complete, and properly disambiguated list of articles belonging to a legitimate encyclopedic topic with broad interest, and not a collection of indiscriminate information. Notability of each high school should be addressed in individual Afds. Latr, Katr 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and notability such as mentioned above cannot apply to lists. Nobody in reliable source land writes in depth articles on "List of XXXXX" as at least I've never seen an article in USA Today titled List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries (which is FL class). This is a problem with all lists, and if that is a concern it should be addressed at WP:LIST not by deleting every list. I also find it odd/strange that the nominator would 1) assume unbiased opinions will come from WP:SCHOOL folk, and 2) that the nominator would not expect those people to participate when referencing a page from within that project. Aboutmovies 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability argument made by the nominator is misguided. The notability of the schools is not a reason to delete this article (unless they are all not notable, which is not the case); it is, obviously, a potential reason to AfD the articles on the schools the nominator feels are not notable. I completely disagree with the argument that the list is a collection of indiscriminate information. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that the spirit of WP:N can still be applied to lists. As in, is this grouping notable? Are there sources on "Oregon high schools" in general? Probably. Someguy1221 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The notability criterion can definitely be applied to lists. However, I don't think the nominator is arguing that Oregon high schools collectively are non-notable (such an argument would be absurd). The nominator is arguing that this list should be deleted because several items on the list are non-notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can apply the WP:N guideline to this list if you want, but even if you do, failing WP:N is not a reason for deletion under the deletion criteria. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm one who is thoroughly against lists, but I feel like this is a place where its needed as some of the schools in that list dont have articles. Since High Schools are considered notable, I think the list addresses the schools who currently dont have an article. Once all the schools get articles, replace this list with a category Corpx 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Redundant with Category:High schools in Oregon. -- Kesh 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that the nominator is violating WP:POINT. User:Tatonka79 has fewer than 50 edits, the vast majority of which are on this AfD, discussing whether or not to AfD this article, and to place notability tags on individual high school articles. The account, at this time, clearly fits the definition of a single purpose account. The reasons given for the nomination make me suspect that it is possible the nominator is trying to make the point that those individual high school articles should be deleted (and thus violating WP:POINT. Because User:Tatonka79 is new and because it pisses me off when people toss around unfounded accusations of WP:POINT in AfD discussions, I am not accusing User:Tatonka79 of violating WP:POINT (yet). I want User:Tatonka79 to show me that he/she is not violating WP:POINT by responding to this comment. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not redundant with the category because it contains many schools for which there is not a Wikipedia article. See WP:LIST#Purpose_of_lists and Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Advantages_of_lists for why this argument is not valid. Cacophony 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be easily remedied by creating stub articles for the redlinked schools. What advantage do we have of keeping a list purely for naming schools we don't even have articles for? -- Kesh 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually very useful for standardization. Do you know how many Lincoln High Schools there are? On several ocasions I have had to merge duplicate school articles due to multiple people creating an article for the same school. If they exist in the List then that should reduce those instances by a person searching for their school, and then finding the proper name per naming guidelines instead of making up what they want. And why make a stub that will just be deleted for notability? Aboutmovies 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Aboutmovies is a highly active and productive member. If he's found the list useful and informative, that means a lot to me. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine any reason to delete, and haven't heard a good reason advanced here. Individual schools don't have to be notable to be worthy of inclusion on a list - notability concerns devoting an entire article to them. The WP:NOT arguments (info and directory) do not apply directly to this kind of list. And Cacophony's argument refutes the "category" argument. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Keep per too many reasons to list that are already listed by others above. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... sigh. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 28
It's interesting. Some of you are implying these comments above list several reasons for high schools in general to all be notable. I don't see a reason listed that supports the idea that all "high schools are considered notable". One can make this assumption and state the point till they're blue in the face, but where is your reasoning? Per WP:Schools:

The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial ³ published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books,⁶ magazine articles, television documentaries, and reports by consumer watchdog organizations.²
The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level on more than one occasion or in multiple such areas.⁷
The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history. For example, the buildings used by some English schools have been classified by English Heritage as listed buildings and are included on the Images of England website, while some American schools are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Many schools have published histories. Details will be found in one of the online catalogues such as Worldcat or, for UK schools, COPAC.

I wonder how many of these commentors bothered to read these. Like I said before, many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles, so of course they're going to defend the idea that all high schools are notable. I don't see much reasoning from any of the above comments, mainly exasperated, emotional comments (watch out with your comments Pablo, you are coming across as very hostile, many users have been banned before for that). Tatonka79 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the notablity guidlines numerous times and are well aware of the critera, I would suggest you do the same. Especially the main notability guideline where in the lead section it states:

These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

So, for notability, I think you are confussed. Individual schools may not be notable. That's when you AFD that school. For lists, again, you are not going to get sources for notability. If you think this should change for list notability, please go to WP:LIST and discuss it there. This is not the place. Aboutmovies 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatonka, I have also read the general notability guidelines many times, and read the Schools notability guideline prior to commenting here. AboutMovies' analysis is completely correct: the notability of Oregon schools collectively is the only notability concern for this list, not the notability of individual schools.

You say that "many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles." Assuming for the moment that this assertion is even relevant, is it true? Absolutely not. I very rarely edit school-related articles, and I know from extensive experience collaborating with them that AboutMovies, T-75, Katr, and Cacophony work on a very wide range of topics as well. A quick glance at Pablo's edit history reveals a wide range there as well. So can you name a single editor here who has even 30% of their edits in school-related articles? I think not. Again, it wouldn't matter even if you could - an editor's opinion is no less important simply because he has an interest in a certain area.

Finally, regarding Pablo: I don't detect the hostility you allege, but even if he were being hostile, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - dealing with poorly-thought-out attempts to delete valid content can be stressful, and we're not always at our best in this sort of debate. A blocking threat, however, does seem hostile, in this context. -Pete 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tatonka keeps citing Wikipedia:Schools, but as noted above, that guideline is deprecated, and thus moot. Is there a current guideline you can link to and base your notability criteria on? Latr, Katr 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only is the WP:Schools guideline no longer active, even if it was, it is only a guideline and NOT a policy. All of WP:N are guidelines and should never be used to establish whether or not an article should be deleted. In fact, WP:N is NOT a reason for an Afd per the deletion policy. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list organizes schools by county and has generated strong consensus of notability. Alansohn 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good list and serves as useful purpose and per Theophilus75. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - It's useful is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:USEFUL isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EagleFan 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Teenage Supergirl

Non notable internet film. I found no reliable secondary sources that would confer notability, and the film has no IMDB listing. It does not seem to pass any of the notability guidelines for films. Kevin 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-not notable ChrisLamb 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources in sight, no IMDb listing, therefore not a notable film by any stretch of the imagination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guessed this would've been a popular internet "thing", however the only mentions are from blogs/forums/(streaming/download) media sites. Corpx 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. If we're going to start articles for "fan films" we might as well start cataloguing people's home movies too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable film. NawlinWiki 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as initial "prodder" no reliable sources, non-notable. SkierRMH 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, selfpublished book, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and The Robotic Plot

Book doesn't come close to meeting WP:BK. Published by vanity press Publish America. Pascal.Tesson 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self publication by a vanity press makes it hard to assert notability per WP:BK. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Kevin 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayagriba Tripathy

Article reads like an hagiography of a subject who (with all due respect) does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article does not cite any sources and the only non-wikipedia-mirror result that a Google search throws up is this List of Pension/Family Pension cases authorised during the month of July,2006, which at least seems to indicate that the person exists. Abecedare 00:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page on the same subject, on the same notability grounds as above:

Abecedare 00:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom - hagiography is about right (!). Bigdaddy1981 01:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - He serves on a board that isnt notable. There's no mention of any references and nothing notable in the article Corpx 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Once one deletes the worthless fluff (the entire "Social service", "Spiritual leanings", and "Personal traits" sections) there is very little left that seems notable or sourcable. —David Eppstein 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. Interesting that both a 1980 Zimbabwean Olympic field hockey player and Johnny Rotten are supposedly in the cast. ;) NawlinWiki 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The saints and the sinners

Got only 2 google hits for article name and "soap opera". Clearly not notable though it tries to assert notability so decided to AfD not speedy. Jimmi Hugh 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. This article is utter WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these are based on a non-notable soap opera, which is also up for deletion Corpx 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. DS 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anquette

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing variations of other people's "notable tunes" does not imbue notability to her. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable [20], [21], [22], though I'm disturbed by the lack of news hits. JJL 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notability seems to be there per Google News Archive, but most articles behind paywalls mean sourcing could be tricky. This is typically the case with pre-internet artists, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She gets no press hits because she's an 80's one-hit wonder, no surprise there. However, see Charting album in 1988. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anquette had some reasonable R&B success, enough for the article to stay. GassyGuy 10:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish First Football League 2000-01

Not sure what this is. Looks like an indiscrimate list so violates WP:ISNOT. It is also not in English. Nv8200p talk 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think that a seasonal article for a higher ranking league would be notable, but this completely lacks context. Resolute 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Added tags Corpx 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it look like Turkish First Football League 2002-03. Deleting this article is a very lazy solution to a very simple problem: 5 minutes of editing will make it a perfectly decent stub article. Note that I've removed the speedy deletion tag: just looking at "what links here" is enough to get you all the context you need. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Its state should not be a reason to delete it. It should be cleaned up, not just put out of the way. Mattythewhite 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be improved to a similar standard of other Turkish league articles. --Dave101→talk 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with the above, it should be changed to be similar to the other consecutive seasons for this league. Deleting it would make a complete mess of Turkish league articles, when all it takes is a clean up. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have redone it in the style of the other article (although I haven't added European qualification as I'm not sure who did what) and it is now a passable stub that can be built upon. Unless somebody is proposing deleting every individual season then I suggest this debate should now be closed. Keresaspa 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" and all the others in a similar style should be deleted as they are not articles but a table of some kind of data that makes no sense to someone not familar with the topic as the letters across the top of the chart have no context. -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case nominate the rest of them and the discussion can be redirected towards your above argument. In itself it is not enough of a reason to delete this one on its own. Keresaspa 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also although the letters make no sense to those not familiar with football that could easliy be rectified by including a key. Whether or not that is necessary is debatable as I don't see why a non-football fan would even be checking the page in the first place. If I go to a random page like say 9-j symbol my ears would probably bleed trying to figure it out but I accept that there are people who deal in this sort of thing and can make perfect sense of all the palaver going on there. A lot of Wikipedia can be said to make no sense to someone not familar with the topic - if we started deleting on that basis there would be very little left. Keresaspa 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleaned up version. Expansion can easily be done by those with knowledge of the Turkish league. Resolute 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still fails WP:ISNOT. This is not an article or a stub of an article. It is nothing but a list of statistics. -Nv8200p talk 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A need for expansion does not equate a need to delete. Resolute 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless somebody adds recaps to go along with the article, these should all be deleted or maybe merged into one. Corpx 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passable stub with plenty of information available in order to expand the article. Davewild 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should have used {{prod}} instead. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Neptune (Soviet Attack 1943)

No references. Fails WP:ATT. Google search only refers to the amphibious landing at Normandy. Nv8200p talk 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this can be attributed, I'd have no problem with notability, but as it stands, I'm just not sure what to say about a minor battle where not much happened and we don't have any references. Shalom ^Hello 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Stalingrad and add some info. on this there; verifiable (search Google for Battle of Stalingrad Neptune), e.g. [23], [24]. JJL 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
January 1943: Stalingrad was safely sealed, the 6th Army crumbling down and the front far away. The attack, if named so was in quite distant region. Pavel Vozenilek 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a mess. As far as I can determine, the Italian 8th Army was attacked as part of Operation Little Saturn in December, while the mid-January attack (called the Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh operation) was directed against the Hungarian 2nd Army. Offhand, the only scholarly reference to an "Operation Neptune" I could find was Glantz speculating that this was a possible codename for a follow-on to Operation Mars. Kirill 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing relevant found in Google Books search. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JJL. --Milton 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another source indicates that NEPTUN was a counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April 1943. Given the apparent disagreement on date/place, at best it's a minor action associated with Stalingrad Campaign. If more sourcing can be found, it would help. Otherwise, delete, since there are too many variables. Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kirill. Bucketsofg 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycloughan primary school

It's a primary school which makes no claims to notability and has no sources. I prodded it, it was de-prodded with what I see as the dubious claim that all schools are notable. If there are no reliable secondary sources about a subject, it's not encyclopedic and should not be included in Wikipedia, per WP:V WP:REF etc. Mak (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable, reads like promotional material. Calgary 02:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.bdca.freeola.net/organs/Schools/Bclough/index.htm. Tagged as such. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Ahmed Chattha

Non-notable, no sources, Google search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors only. Probably unverifiable, probably conflict of interest. Huon 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person, could not find anything anywhere on this person (except wiki/answers.com link). Cannot establish WP:N or WP:V. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert his individual notability. Likely vanity. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on someone's point of view, being a General in the Army could in itself be notable. If so, then they tried to assert notability, however it still needs sources/verifiability to be notable. As I said above, I couldn't find any, however. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this comment added to the article by 202.125.143.65: The ancestors of the Chattha Tribe were duly decorated by the british, fought many battles against the sikhs and by the virtue of their deeds the tribe is still the most respected one of the Pakistan but he is not known even in one kilometre radius of his village neither is he a public figure. Infact I have heard of him for the first time. An article on a real, verifiable general I would certainly be in favour of keeping, but I can't find anything to substantiate the claim and see no reason to doubt 202.125.143.65. Heather 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though this guy is NN, and should be deleted, I don't agree with your delete argument solely based on the fact that some random IP put in some POV on the article --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said, it was my inability to locate any information on my own combined with the IP's comments that led to my !vote. Heather 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understood the article to claim that Rizwan Ahmed Chatta's ancestors, Khuda Buksh Chattha and Nawab Khan Chattha, were generals in Ranjit Singh's army. Rizwan Ahmed Chatta himself is not claimed to be a general. --Huon 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks' Club

Doesn't seem to meet the notability standards of WP:ORG only source is a self-published book. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this organisation does not have much publicity, this is a result of its nature as a private members club, its influence on the niversity and probably on the country would be very easy to underestimate.

Deleting the article would only serve to cut of the general public from a failry closed and privilidged world that it would be better for more people to understand and have access to.

Please try and understan what an atricle as about before it is selected for injudicious deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.249.88 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you might want to look at Skull and Bones a comparable institution to what you claim about this club. That article has numerous third-party sources. This doesn't. And there is nothing whatsoever injudicious about this AFD. It's a standard process, with 5 days to comment on the club and offer an explanation as to how it meets the relevant criteria for inclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I wrote to say that I thought that the deletion of this article would be a mistake. I have spent some time at Cambridge, and the more information the better, even for smaller clubs and so on.Twuster 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is it a mistake to delete this article? Are you suggesting that every club at Cambridge should have an article? You're not really being convincing here, since you're not really saying anything about this club. Why does it matter? Because to be honest, with this kind of comment, I'm more inclined to believe your association with Cambridge is warping your perspective on this situation. Perhaps you think everybody "just knows" this club is important, but try to imagine this was some random university in the world. Would you think it was a good article then? FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please explain how this article does not meet notability criteria of WP:ORG. I notice this editor has put up a raft of AfDs which seem to relate exclusively to Oxford and Cambridge university societies. Some may be justified; others are certainly not - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club. Johnbod 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." . And as I said in the nomination, the only sources in this article were its own self-published books. So, where are the third-party sources that cover this club? They're not in the article. And again, you attack me for these nominations. I don't know why. I came across these categories which have a fair number of unreferenced articles on clubs at these universities. Is there something wrong with saying "Hmm, this may be a problem?" and after looking for sources, not finding any significant ones, deciding to try the AFD route? Do you believe I have some sort of grudge against these universities? Seriously, what do you expect me to do, nominate individual articles from every college that has inappropriate ones added to Wikipedia? I suppose I could, but it'd take a long time. But no, I think I'll deal with problems as I see them. And in this case, you may note, I didn't bundle or mass nominate every club. Just those which most clearly didn't have third-party sources. If you have a problem with that, I can only say, WP:AGF. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article needs to be improved by having excess detail removed. As i'ts considered a good thing to improve an article while at AfD, I removed some as a start. In practice, I consider that notable members are a partial guide to notability. But I'd be much happier with a good source or two--surely some of these gentlemen--or their political opponents, perhaps-- must have written about it? DGG 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many of these notable members are known as being members of the club? That's simply not a good argument to notability on its own. Do you think it matters to anyone that Prince Charles was a member of this club? Hugh Laurie? Karan Bilimoria? I'm sorry, but the notability doesn't transfer over very well in this case. Besides, I've never seen any argument whatsoever that indicates that having notable members equals notable organization is an accepted consensus anyway. It would be much better to find coverage of this club rather than rely on these arguments of transference. FrozenPurpleCube 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rationale for deletion is simple: In order to pass the WP:ORG guideline, there must be independent reliable sources about the subject. No such sources have been given, however. --B. Wolterding 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources, which seem unlikely to be found. --Huon 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Cambridge Blue is notable. The people who earn them often go on to notable careers and I am surprised that many of those people have not written about the Club that they joined as a Blue at Cambridge. Coming from "the other place" (Oxford) I really do not know where to look for this information. A Google search gives information about many people who mention their membership and many other important Clubs that see fit to have reciprocal membership with the Hawks' Club. I would move to strong keep if more references were added, as I am sure that this Club is notable. --Bduke 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found two references documenting the club's charity work with The Prostate Cancer Charity: Press release from Cambridge & the Charity's coverage of a fundraiser hosted by the club. Both of those should satisfy WP:RS. Caknuck 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, yes; but not independent, being from the University and the charity they sponsored, respectively. Also does not contain much substantial information on the club (basically a one-paragraph boilerplate blurb). --B. Wolterding 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.-Wafulz 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam (line of mobile suits)

This is quite possibly the worst of a largely low-quality group of articles. If you're not already familiar with Gundam, this is an incomplete list article for obscure models of "mobile suit," or mecha, from the long-running Mobile Suit Gundam series. This list, abandoned since April, is a dumping ground for unencyclopedic statistics about these fictional mecha, with no reference to the real world after the first sentence of the article.

This article is unreferenced, makes no reference to the real world, and its subject has no potential to be the subject of commentary in reliable sources. It is not useful as a merge target, nor would it be useful to merge into another article. It was prodded, but unprodded by Jtrainor (talk · contribs) without explanation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will note this was a contested prod, but I'm changing my mind-- this really does need a complete re-write, though the subject itself is definitely noteable. Jtrainor 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll rewrite it when I have time. MalikCarr 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for real world context means it doesn't get an article. Jay32183 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to use a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I should point out there are hundreds of articles on fictional weapons that can not and will not have any real-world context. See, for example, lightsaber. Snarfies 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of those articles should similarly be merged or deleted. Now, as for your example, Lightsaber#Lightsaber effects in the films begs to differ. Lightsaber isn't a very good article, but it certainly has room for improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I counter with http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN926800, http://www.amazon.com/Gundam-HGUC-MRX-009-Psycho-Scale/dp/B00030EUXA, if props and models count as "real-world context." Snarfies 13:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not having props and models, it's having commentary on props and models. All those sources show is that the models exist. Jay32183 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, if somebody added a few lines on the model kits, will that settle the issue, then? Snarfies 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Have you actually read WP:WAF or WP:FICT? Jay32183 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation in intelligible form. Haukur 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have to say that an article on Psyco Gundam is as "useless" as another droid on Star Wars. That being said, I will not disagree that the article can really be polished.

Merge In general, we don't need an article on every single mobile suit in the Gundam franchise. However, it would be much better to merge this and other mobile suits like it into a list with brief descriptions of the suit and its rule in the franchise. --Farix (Talk) 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Molecular Biology on human health

This page is weird... It looks like OR but at the same time is sourced, so I don't know what to do with it. Will ^(talk) 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR. Evidence does not support claims. JFW | T@lk 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, irrelevant sources and poor formatting. Kariteh 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Good idea, could help, needs wiki page, but needs some initial editing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash Vaidya (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are not relevant in deletion debates. Kariteh 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for completely missing its subject. Has lots of Nature articles about molecular biology, but virtually nothing about the effect on human health. And Wikipedia sure is not an index of Nature articles. --Huon 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete about as unencyclopedic as an article can get. Incomplete OR, based on a very superficial understanding.DGG 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As the article is designed currently, it appears to solicit OR and opinions from editors! At best, this will end up just a content fork of molecular biology. At worst, we wind up with POV pushing. I don't see the need to let this article continue. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not an encyclopedia article, and is also almost content free. The subject itself could have been in principle a section in another article, but as this article stands, it says almost nothing about anything.Dan Gluck 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will be an encyclopaedic article, using the power of wiki to create it! The Effect of People paragraphs are neither OR, nor POV. They will be the results of clinical trials that have proven the benefit of the molecular biology paper to humanity with proper referencing. Any one sided POV will be challenged and edited (as usual) on the wiki!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.53.45 (talk • contribs)
Delete as an original essay. Someguy1221 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a good faith effort, but this is not an encyclopedia article. It should be built on a different wiki system. Debivort 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medhananda

too much fluff; not enough sources Will ^(talk) 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sources? and by fluff?

Delete This sounds like just a show-off of the books by a certain author, the page is not wikified, and even the talk page of this article shows that the article is a copy-paste from the site of the author. Even the introducion is very confusing in this article. ~Iceshark7 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of reliable secondary sources (which seem difficult, if not impossible, to find). Plus, it's either a copyright violation, being a copy&paste job, or it's a conflict of interest. --Huon 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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