Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 31: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:30, 31 August 2007 editBravedog (talk | contribs)247 edits nom Jimmy← Previous edit Revision as of 17:31, 31 August 2007 edit undoRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits disruption Undid revision 154847219 by Bravedog (talk)Next edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Johnson vs. Buckle}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Johnson vs. Buckle}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minazo (2nd nomination)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minazo (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 17:31, 31 August 2007

< August 30 September 1 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 keep. -- Anonymous Dissident 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnson vs. Buckle

Johnson vs. Buckle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. This page was recently blanked by an anon on grounds of alleged libel, which I've reverted for the moment. It appears to me to be more than adequately sourced, but I don't know enough (i.e. anything) about the case to judge whether it's a) a BLP violation that should be speedied, b) a valid article but about a subject not notable enough to warrant keeping, that should be deleted via AfD, or c) a valid article which should remain (possibly under another title). So, sending it over here for someone to form an opinion. This is a procedural nom, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment While there is precedence for having articles about lawsuits, (Roe v. Wade), at first glance, this article has some problems. First, and most evident, the article seems to be more about the event that led to the lawsuit, rather than the lawsuit itself. While valid sources are listed, with references from the NY Post, MSNBC, WCBStv, etc., it does seem that at least some of the references may be questionable in regards to WP:RS, as they appear to be blogs of some kind (The Gawker, fiercenyc.org). There seems to be significant news coverage of the event that led up to the lawsuit, but it seems that many of the references in the article are relating to the event, rather than to the lawsuit itself. I would think that if care was taken to keep the article's focus on the lawsuit, and not have it shift to a non-neutral slant of the event itself that led to the lawsuit, then the article could remain. All that being said, my initial search didn't find any sources talking about the lawsuit itself (that are not already included in the article), except mentions on blogs, etc., that again mainly covered the event, not the suit. Also, I'd suggest the references be properly cited to add the title, etc, to help with readability and reference. 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to the stricter enforcement under the WP:BLP1E rule and WP:COATRACK, some at AFD/DRV have advocated legal case names as WP:V-compliant names for articles that should not be biographies. If people have a problem with recounting the "causation" of the lawsuit in such articles, then my argument that these are not optimal names has some merit. I think that "Dwayne Buckle assault case" or some such name might be more appropriate, because it would encompass what people actually want to write an article about as well as what the sources for that article focus on. We can decide a name here or let the editors come up with one. Either that or we just go back to covering these within biographies, but I don't think that would go without controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Dhartung about naming--we might as well use a more direct name. Normally it would be better not to have an (apparent) victim as the primary name, but when there are a group of alleged attackers, its the only practical way. There are sufficient sources for an article. That said, this is an extremely poor article, with selective sourcing and POV. The rewriting should be done with care for BLP with respect to everyone concerned. DGG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I rewrote part of the Dwayne Buckle page, which at that time was essentially an attack page attacking the new jersey seven. Arguments ensued, and thus the discussion was spun off to form this page. I will admit to a personal POV, however if someone wishes to produce a better article outlining neutrally all of the claims, counter claims, and media portrayals reasonably then I can tell you they are in for a rough ride, it is neigh impossible to obtain any "official" statements on anything (I tried to obtain a court transcript, for example), and there are barely any facts agreed upon by any of the articles published. I don't know how similar cases are to be handled, so at this point I just have to deliver some article, however "poor" it may be, which referenced everything I could find. Until investigating this case I was blissfully ignorant of the extent of media bias, but seeing so much disagreement in a highly publicized case has enlightened me. I think the article should be kept, and if someone can present the available information without selectively dismissing one article for another they are more than welcome. Danielfong 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I wrote the Dwayne Buckle article and it was not an attack on the New Jersey seven. The article was very straight forward and presented the facts as agreed upon by the courts. In fact the information about the attack was intentionally kept to a minimum and did mention Buckles verbal assault of the women before the fight ensued. The fact is your problem and the problem with this article is that you view neutrality as an attack on the New Jersey seven. Now that being said I think this article is worth fixing to a NPOV so I will vote Keep --The Emperor of Misplaced Pages 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article has a dozen sources from multiple accounts: it surely fulfills notability. This page needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. Nyttend 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment To The Emperor of Misplaced Pages: This shouldn't largely effect policy decision, but, are you aware that (a) courts have been known to make erroneous judgments, (b) media sources such as the New York Post and the Gawker are frequently biased or incorrect, and even newspapers of record, such as the New York Times, are known to be biased and self-censoring (see for example, footage captured in Chomsky's movie, Manufacturing Consent) (c) selectively ignoring reports or discrepancies in the media (such as for example the physical violence that Buckle was reported to have engaged in), and to report conviction of offense as fact (further, for a case set to be appealed), does not seem to fit the sensible definition of neutral? That to deny even the existence of alternative claims of the case in question it fails to provide a meaningful perspective on the issue? I don't have the energy to argue endlessly about this, but I want to make my point clear, again, that I do not believe that that article as it stood was NPOV, that I have reasons for believing this, and that I think many sane people and editors would agree with me. Danielfong 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While, as I said in the nom, I know nothing about the case and am not in a position to judge who's right & wrong, regardless of the justice of the courts decision, the fact of what the decision is a verifiable fact that should be stated in the article should the article be kept (as can, if necessary, discussion of people who believe it's a miscarriage of justice, providing they can be reliably sourced) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, not keep or delete. Cases need notability but no point in law is clarified by this case, unlike Supreme Court cases. If the article is rewritten and retitled about the attack and not -- v. -- then maybe it's a keep. UTAFA 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • comment I have no reason at all to write an article attacking these women. I wrote the Buckle article because of an E-mail I received about the case from a friend who believed it was a miscarriage of justice. I simply wrote an article with the facts available. Anyhow none of that is important I just don't much care for being accused of authoring an attack site. I think this article ought to be renamed the New Jersey Seven and redirect be established for the name each of the seven defendants. I also feel a template similar to the one for the west memphis three ought to be used. --The Emperor of Misplaced Pages 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If it's an article about the lawsuit, then I agree with UTAFA; I see no notability there (maybe there's a joke to be made involving a Johnson against a buckle?) The title of one of the sources.."Saying 'hi' lands man in the hospital" says it all (or "Man attacked by seven lesbians" might say it better). Notable because it's a straight guy being attacked by homosexuals, instead of a gay guy being abused by homophobes? Different, yes; notable, I'm not sure. Mandsford 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as it's sourced, but needs cleanup. Man bites dog story means it's news, but notable? Bearian 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Minazo

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

A performing seal who died in a zoo in Japan in 2005, and the subject of the "i has a bucket' image macros. Article was created as an offshoot of Lolrus, an article on the aforementioned meme, also currenly on afd. Absolutely no indication or assertion of notability. -- Vary | Talk 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable (as I originally tagged shortly after the article was created). Realkyhick 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Agreed, on second checking Minzano unfortunately isn't quite notable enough as a stand-alone seal (walrus). Searches on Japanese news may turn up more but I have no idea of how to do so with Kenji or other character sets. Redirect to lolrus, as that AfD appears headed for a Keep result. This can be a subsection of that article, and the few sources that exist for Minzano will bolster that even further for a fairly robust short article. Has you seen my redirect to lolrus? • Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for the record, as poorly referenced and lacking in notability as this article is, lolrus is even worse, its only decent source being one passing reference in an article primarily about lolcats. And right now that discussion is at best heading for a no consensus: the mixture of 'deletes' and 'redirects' do outnumber the 'keeps,' and there have been very few arguments stronger than WP:ILIKEIT. -- Vary | Talk 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. - KrakatoaKatie 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ploegmakers Publications

Ploegmakers Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)Article purports to be some kind of novel theory of science and creation in which the universe came into existance one dimension at a time, and then these merged.

Already tagged by other users as WP:OR, which I agree with. Appears to be self-published. Prodded by others, and prod removed as author claims it has been "published elsewhere", but in fact the site linked to doesn't seem to show any especial evidence that it's more than what it seems - a fringe concept with either author-only or tiny-minority interest at best.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm fairly familiar with the field having edited a lot on cosmology and the Big Bang, and co-authored metric expansion of the universe. This article reads like a novel theory. In the introduction the article author states:

"Number of publications made on Misplaced Pages by Jeroen Ploegmakers from The Netherlands that contain new insights and findings from the author as investigator himself in Astronomy, Quantummechanics and Cosmology...."

Either this is 1/ genuine science dressed up very poorly in a rambling essay format that goes nowhere, or 2/ it's a snip from genuine science which is used to build rambling OR, or 3/ its pure OR.

Policies which this seems to falls foul of:

  1. WP:NOT a publisher of OR
  2. WP:N apparent lack of notability and WP:NOT a publisher of tiny fringe articles
  3. Apparent self-promotion of own publications and website WP:COI / WP:SPAM.
  4. Lack of WP:RS reliable sources
  5. Lack of WP:V verifiability to independent credible sources
  6. Possible WP:CSD / WP:AFD "patent nonsense"
  7. WP:CSD / WP:AFD no assertion of importance/significance
  8. Possible WP:HOAX?

A case of WP:SNOW?

FT2 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. WP:BOLLOCKS too, I forgot that one. Probably ran out of space to list it. FT2 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MyHound

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

There are sources, but it is unclear that they are significant enough to demonstrate notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Like mentioned before, MyHound is notable because it is the first centralized alert system for the entertainment industry. Various sources, including well-respected blogs and online tech portals (not to mention Newsweek!) lend credibility to this claim. These sources exactly fit the criteria for this article to be "notable." Admittedly it is not a very large firm yet, but this is not to the detriment of its importance as the creator of an original online concept, and thus its inclusion in Misplaced Pages is more than justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDB6000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — JDB6000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Attard

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

Local politician. Unsourced article, contested speedy. Other articles mention that he's a leader of a non-notable band (unsourced) and that he competed in lawn bowls in the Commonwealth Games, but is that really enough to satisfy WP:BIO? --Finngall 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of types of cricket delivery

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

Article provides no useful information other than a list of delivery names and nothing more than what's in template {{Cricket deliveries}} (which is in each of the sub articles). The list has no inbound links. —Moondyne 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Create a category for this information. Charles Matthews 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The category existing, delete, assuming the list is pretty much complete. Charles Matthews 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A category already exists, see Category:Cricket deliveries. I'll run through and make sure they're all covered now. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Doosra was the only one missing, with the exception of slider, for which there isn't a specific delivery equivalent in cricket (balls can slide on from the pitch, but they aren't called sliders). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(Oops, technically wrong, Slider (cricket) does exist - I assumed it was used in a general type cricket delivery context, not in terms of the leg-spinner's alternative, which slipped my mind :blush: - but it was already in the category. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There already exists Category:Cricket deliveries —Moondyne 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Does doing so *really* constitute any major bonus? The only thing from Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Lists that really applies is #1, but I would argue context is already there in the shape of the List's name; and would adding text to what is basically going to be summarised in a 20 second read of the specific delivery article's lead really worth it? I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I'm not so sure this is the case for it myself. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Recht

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

Single-sourced, non-notable musician. No hits, no sign of any real-world impact. PROD tag added but removed by User:Kappa with the comment "sounds like he passes WP:MUSIC", though I can't see the slightest way that's possible. Calton | Talk 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • One source? One wire-service story? And the condition of 90% or whatever of other music articles means nothing, unless Misplaced Pages has started grading on a curve. --Calton | Talk 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Has anyone looked at the history of this article? The original opener,"Rick Recht is a Jewish musician who is especially known for his live performances for groups of youth all over the United States. He has released four jewish albums, one live DVD performance, and also three secular albums", was removed. He's also been featured in Newsweek and Christianity Today as a top performer in Jewish rock.--Sethacus 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Except there wasn't a sliver of a breath of a hint of whisper of a suggestion of this alleged fame, nor of anything resembling reliable sources except a single AP article. And you haven't actually come close to changing that with your changes. Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for every musical act on Earth to try and get famous. --Calton | Talk 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lemon Tree

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

The article is about a venue for music, plays and other types of performances in my home town. I've been to a few good gigs there but I have serious doubts as to its notability. h i s r e s e a r c h 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as CV of . Tippytoe tippytoe lemon tree lemon tree ccwaters 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Besides that, I don't think it's notable anyway.-h i s r e s e a r c h 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Since there are far fewer redlinks this time, it seems the main complaint has been addressed.KrakatoaKatie 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of British Asian people

AfDs for this article:
List of British Asian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was recently part of a multi-article AfD which was closed as no consensus. As the name suggests, it's extremely broad and redundant to Category:British Asians and the various subcats therein. After a routine cleanup of some entirely uncited redlinks, I was surprised to be reverted with the edit summary redlinks.. are not to be removed. In an indiscriminate, bare, unreferenced vanity-magnetic list such as this, I couldn't disagree more. Deiz talk 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per my previous reason in AfD, Asian people have played a significant role in British history and are a sizeable, officially-recognised minority in the UK. Issues of maintenance are not valid grounds for deletion. Qwghlm 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
And issues of being bare, indiscriminate and redundant to categories? Nobody is denying the impact this group has had, but your rationale seems to have more to do with WP:ILIKEIT, less to do with any of the p's & g's that govern lists on Misplaced Pages. Deiz talk 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not indiscriminate if it's limited to notable people. It's not redundant to categories because it is annotated and is grouped by occupation, which the category isn't (well OK the category is partiallly subcategorized but it shouldn't be, per WP:OCAT). Kappa 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to British Asian being a criterion, it's a categorization used by the British census office so its not something arbitrarily made up by WP editors. I suppose the alternative would be breaking down by country, but it might be better to wait until the list gets too big to fit on one page before doing that. Kappa 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
to elaborate further on why lists should be kept and maintained even in cases where categories exist: 1) the list is annotated with context; 2) the list is in different and more easily changed sort order than found in categories; 3) the list includes, and properly so, items for which there are yet no articles (red links); 4) sections of the list can be more easily linked to from articles (impossible with categories) Hmains 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work with the reds Kappa.. I've got far less of a problem with this if it's kept free of redlinks. When editors restore redlinks and tell me they are not to be removed, then we have cruft problems.. Maybe it'll stick this time. Deiz talk 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well in an ideal world an expert editor would be removing all non-notable red links and leaving the notable ones, and actually I have no reason to doubt that was happening here. However if you insist on removing unreferenced red links you can do so per WP:V. Kappa 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Red lists are allowed everywhere else. WP is full of them, so what's so different about this article? Reverted Uranometria 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is full of unverifiable stuff which can be removed by any editor... Kappa 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
what I see various editors do, once they have found a person to not be notable enough to be listed in the article (such as not in Goggle), is to move that name to the list's talk page and make a section which lists those names and why they have been moved there. This preserves information in WP for possible future use as the facts change (a later Goggle search or some other measure of notability), but keeps the lists up to standard. No harm in keeping such names on the talk page. Thanks. Hmains 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft Clans

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

Fails WP:N and violates WP:OR. These clans are probably not more notable than a local sports club. No independent references (nor any sources at all) have been given. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete article is completely WP:OR and I fail to see much notability for just "Starcraft clans" Corpx 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any way to meet WP:RS or WP:V either. --Bfigura 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:ORG. There appear to a lot of other Starcraft related articles that could be AFD candidates which seem to be badly written and referenced WP:Fancruft. --Gavin Collins 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can now say everything I now know about StarCraft Clans I learnt from this article. As a phenomona that has passed me by this article has been a useful in learning about the topic, I now at least know that the topic exists, and have some search terms I can use to Google farther information. Okay so things need to be sourced, however knowing the nature of fans in general any major inaccuracies and controversies will have been dealt with in a Darwinian process of editing. The edit history shows editing by multiple editors over a period of almost two years with the article stabilising into a form seemingly acceptable to editors of different persuasions. Given this I'd be willing to trust that the article is for the most part factually correct. As to notability the online gaming community is a huge phenomona, individual clans may not be notable but in total the claim on the talk page that in Korea alone there are approximately 3000 clans averaging 50 members each 150,000 active particpants. I would say notability approaches that of a minor religous cult not merely a local sports club. As a topic it may not interest you or me but that doesn't stop it being notable.KTo288 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I personally don't see a problem with notability, but I can't imagine how to meet WP:V. Unless you know of a reliable source that discusses starcraft clans, and can verify the article's information, it probably has to go. --Bfigura 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could you expand on why you think there should be no problems with notability please. Its up on two counts so if we can get one of them out of the way we can concenrate on the other.KTo288 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sure. It's more based on the fact that given how popular the phenomenon is, I'm guessing that there are references that talk about clans. (Not that I'm convinced that the references have been produced and used to prove notability). But given the nature of of such clans (pseduo-fancruft-y and all), I imagine that most of those references would be unreliable. So, I thought I'd focus on the verifiability issue. --Bfigura 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found and added two sources to the article, one from the National Defense University and one from Esther Dyson.KTo288 09:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)KTo288 17:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I could see, these sources are about gaming clans in general, and only briefly mention StarCraft as an example. They mention the commercial success of StarCraft in Korea (which may underline the notability of the game), and quote the number of StarCraft clans; but I think they are not suited for establishing the notability of a "StarCraft Clans" article. Citing these sources in StarCraft may be appropriate, though. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as subpage/spinoff If we say this article, which is intricately tied to the main StarCraft page, is worthy of deletion because of notability...then it would seem that we would have to throw the main page up for deletion as well. Scanning through I didn't notice as POV problems, it seems very encyclopedic in nature. I think that if this page is to continue, there needs to be a visible link to it from the main page. (Myhorses 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
    • In my opinion, an article that is not verifiable against sources is not encyclopedic in nature. The content given here is, in most parts, not attributable to the sources added later. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Sources that can be used for attribution for the content can be found, but of the type which will be dismissed as "fancruft-y". If nothing else, even if they don't verify the content of the article, the sources I've added can be used to show the notabilty of the topic, that it is notable enough to be the subject of scholarly analysis.KTo288 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • As far as I understood the sources, they scholarly analyze the topic "gaming clans", but not "StarCraft clans". (Also, it would rather be unlikely to find such an analysis related to one single product only.) --B. Wolterding 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - StarCraft clans is not a notable or verifiable topic. The article describes a mix of gaming clans in general and several Battle.net features. The Further Reading discusses clans in general, not StarCraft clans. There's nothing separate StarCraft clans from any other type of gaming clan. --Scottie_theNerd 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note This debate has been included in the list of Video games deletons KTo288 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirected to List of GURPS books ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS Monsters

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

Book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION. The article content appears to have been cut & pasted from List of Monsters which sugests this is Fancruft. The article itself does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and may have WP:COI authorship issues. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment As both author of the book, and editor of the article, you are advised to have a look at the WP:COI guidlines. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sure. You are similarly advised: "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest". Like I said, it's not relevant here. If you have an issue, please bring it up in the appropriate place (my talk or the talk of the article which you feel has been edited in violation of WP:COI). -- JHunterJ 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, based on new reviews found, or barring that, redirect as above. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added two reviews to the article, though if other debates about GURPS articles are to go by, some of you will set little store by them. The thing is that with the advent of the web, the traditional independent paper RPG magazine has basically dissapeared, whats left is the online equivalent and the company mouth pieces,neither of which seems to satisfy those in favour of deleting. The GURPS books are unique amongst RPG source books in that they are open, they are designed to stimulate imagination and player interaction rather than binding players to the rules, the system allows tweaking to suit the game you are playing not the game the authors think you should play. The books are great resources for GMs and players using any game system in everything from characters and adversaries to items, vehicles and campaign settings.KTo288 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Keep Deletion is unnecessary and not helpful. Rray 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books. Website reviews aren't in general non-trivial, so article fails notability test. Redirection helps to prevent recreation. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment From what I understand, in these days of the web, not many gaming magazines do reviews of role-playing games anymore. I think Dragon hasn't really done reviews in many years (and, of course, has recently stopped being published). Pyramid does some reviews, but being the company mouthpiece of Steve Jackson Games, doesn't review their own games. Generally all we're left with is web-reviews. I agree that some of them are "trivial" (i.e. don't satisfy WP:N requirements like being user-submitted reviews), but other sites like RPG.net have "staff writers" that do reviews for the site. We shouldn't discount them all just because they are web-only. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. Perhaps we can discuss this in the RPG WikiProject (or has this already done?). Do you think it is conceivable to define specific guidelines for notability of RPG books? --Goochelaar 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey)

Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Never played professionally, fails WP:BIO ccwaters 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Thomas

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

Patent hoax; technically not proddable/CSDable under WP policy so bringing it here — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This has clearly given sources from the British library and not all historical events are posted on the internet. It is true that lately there has been vandalisment on this article, beefing up his criminal status, but the sources clearly indicate Joseph Thomas's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.115.37 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is the first post in the above user's contribution history not to be vandalism — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1 x Open proxy, blocked. -- zzuuzz 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable sources have been cited as to this man's existence- i think we should keep this article unless someone checks the sources and sees if he is actually mentioned. Pekaak 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A close friend of mine came across Joseph Thomas in a reliable source while studying at university. Therefore it is only fair to keep the article while the existence of this man is under debate, although really there should be no debate at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) — 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sources referenced are definately real books... perhaps sources which could be verified should be found by the author of the page, or alternatively give further proof? The links to the British Library cannot be followed without a British Library user account. Alternatively, this page could be categorised under myths and legends, as its content seems rather unlikely, but without further research into Taft, and the subject of this article, it should not be deleted.

The books do exist, however the links do not show this. Their relavence to the subject is however to be questioned. Also, some extreme exaggeration of what is no more than a myth causes this article to be no more than nonsense. The author must be asked to either improve on this article, or leave it for deletion, as it cannot remain in its current, ridiculous state. Presenting Weasel Thomas as a real life figure can only lead to deletion, since it is verifiably untrue.

A suggestion: Rename this page "Legend of Weasel Thomas". regds. Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) — Save the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just felt that this sounded intriguing... if it was a real legend... I know that if you look in the People/Myths and Legends section you get far more ridiculous legend which are ceritified as REAL legends...

Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Beast (state of being)

Beast (state of being) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be entirely original research. I've heard "beast" used colloquially to mean that someone is very good at something, but that's not enough to substantiate an article. I could not find a dictionary definition for this meaning and, in any case, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. The article would need to do more than define "beast". It would need reliable sources to establish this usage, and it does not. Leebo /C 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mariana Cordoba

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

Contested prod. Only 5 movies & no awards, nothing to indicate passes WP:PORNBIO. Although I'll mourn the loss of the line "Her Cock Is Bigger Than Mine!" from Misplaced Pages — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Burnett

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

Non-notable (there are many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), and the article is basically a press release. Appears to be written by several related user accounts and IPs whose only edits are to insert Chris Burnett into articles, raising COI and spam issues as well. Special-T 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Has, according to the article, won a prize and is affiliated with a label that may make him notable. However, I believe the article needs a lot of trimming per WP:UNDUE, as most of it reads like a resume. I'll avoid trimming this myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. Lilac Soul 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment His affiliation seems to be with his own record label (see the contributors to the article), negating any claims to notability. - Special-T 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As written it seems borderline on WP:MUSIC, but does include enough unrelated references to suggest notability. Does need cleanup to be more encyclopedic though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn 5 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, I think too much weight is being given to his self-listed promo. Those 'unrelated references' are: BMI - anyone who's written a song can be an affiliate; a restaurant listing him as playing there; an endorsement of Lomax mouthpieces; membership in IAJE - anyone can join; an entertainment calendar listing - anyone with a gig would be there; a local magazine feature; another gig listing at a local festival; AFM membership - again, anyone can join; and his military service record. All indicate that he's a working local musician in KC. All well and good, but not encyclopedic. - Special-T 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence or reliable source that indicates he passes the standard at WP:MUSIC, without which keeping this amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Eusebeus 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article's badly written and promotional, to start with, and there's not a whole lot of sources to go by (note that the BBC link at the bottom refers to a movie character, not this musician). I'm not sure that he quite reaches WP:MUSIC at this time. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't find much on this guy on the web that hasn't been written by himself (or rearranged wording written by him), no apparent discography other than a selection of songs he claims royalties on. Once you've dived below the blanket of rhetoric there doesn't seem to be much that meets WP:MUSIC--WebHamster 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. This guy has obviously had a noteworthy career. I am the intern who posts all of these types of things for their record label. So, this bio is not "self-listed promo" and anyone making a case to delete is mostly doing so without due consideration of the objective standards at WP:MUSIC. The man has already had a very distinguished musical career of 22 years in the military and is continuing in the commercial music world. Keep this and please clean it up, that is what wiki is about. Knowing the inherent competitive nature of musicians, doesn't anyone else find it particularly curious that a saxophone player started this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEITMisplaced Pages editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. Other editors hate fair use images and text, but again until there is a policy stating that fair use is prohibited the fact that an image is fair use, or an article contains a lot of fair use media, is not grounds for deletion provided fair use criteria are met. Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects. Perhaps the most common example of this kind of argument is the oft-used argument that articles/categories/whatever should be deleted as cruft. While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Some may see it as an embarrassment if someone's garage band later enjoy international success, though we cannot yet know this, hence such an article would have little potential. On the other extreme, featured content has emerged from "cruft": a featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as an in popular culture section.

  • Comment - In the jazz world, there are not (many thousands of successful working musicians with similar resumes), especially in the major US jazz market cities like Kansas City - New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Orleans, etc. Add the factor Chris Burnett's military music career and you have another element of note because only a small number of musicians and people qualify for military bands at any level (some qualify as individuals, but not as musicians and some qualify as musicians, but not as individuals - the number who qualify in both areas is small). Any adding of Chris Burnett's name to sections at wikipedia were done by me to cross reference, not spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment 1- I made no subjective judgments about quality of his music - that is not the issue here. 2- Extrapolating from the number of excellent jazz musicians working in the small-market-for-jazz city where I live (guys who have played with Ellington, Maria Schneider, Aretha, Wynton, the list is nearly endless, and many who have had long careers in military service bands), it is reasonable to extrapolate to, yes, thousands of such musicians in the country. 3- The conflict of interest issues here are pretty obvious - you, an employee of his record label, deem him to have a noteworthy career. Maybe he does, but by Misplaced Pages policy, the judgment of someone in that position should not be the basis of deciding notability, and I didn't think the press-release-style article proved it adequately. That's why the article is listed here - not because I don't like someone or his music. And, since you've accused me of some personal/professional pettiness in listing this article here, you might want to take a look at WP:No personal attacks. Let's stick to the policy, notability, and conflict-of-interest issues. - Special-T 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Thanks for clarification of your position. Believe me, I am as objective as anyone and I am not an employee or biased in the manner you imply. This listing has been here for more than a year. It has survived vandalism and if the pointedness of my remarks are taken as attacks on you, they are not meant to be. It is just easy to sit in the position of anonymous judge and jury in a paradigm like this. Whatever is decided is cool. I don't even think that he looks at this anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.202.54 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, whatever the community decides is cool - well said. Just working for a better Misplaced Pages. - Special-T 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn and page redirected by nominator. Non-admin closure. Iain99 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song)

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC Kevin 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected as suggested. I'll leave this for someone else to close though. Kevin 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown

Sacred Heart Parish, Marystown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Very) slight assertion of notability due to media coverage of the family in the basement, so not prodding, but if there is anything to that it should be in an article on the family, while anything on the church should be in an article on the building. While I firmly support a page for every named geographic location, I can't believe we need an entry on every individual church parish — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Creator (musician)

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

No indication of notability, no important information, no references, looks like a complete vanity entry — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Equality Maryland

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

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England /Go Red Sox! 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S cities with large Romanian American populations

List_of_U.S_cities_with_large_Romanian_American_populations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

DELETE: This article is almost completely unsourced. It contains a random list of cities that it claims have large Romanian-American populations, with no way to verify that (a) these cities do have large (whatever that means) Romanian-American populations, or (b) that other US cities do not have similarly large or larger Romanian-American populations. The inclusion of Montpelier, Vermont, total population not even 8,000, makes me think this article may in fact be a joke. Malangali 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD G4: the article is not significantly different from the previously deleted article Michael Kelly (journalist). —David Eppstein 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Kelly (Irish journalist)

Michael_Kelly_(Irish_journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

to save from vandalism should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siptu (talk • contribs) 2007/08/30 18:18:50

Comment This shouldn't be on AfD (for the reason given). Nick mallory 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Links to own articles and radio appearances do not qualify as independent evidience of notability. --Gavin Collins 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: It should be noted that the AFD originator is also the subject of the article/originator. He deleted a sourced edit (albeit from a blog) from another person that showed evidence of plagiarism. But...as you note...his lack of notability has already been estabilished in another AFD discussion. - Smashville 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Considering the page shows no evidence of being vandalized in the past and considering that "potential for vandalism" is not a reason for closing an article (see: Michael Vick), this is not a valid reason for deletion. Smashville 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as db-repost after discovering previous AfD. Slightly changed title, still not notable. Smashville 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Clear Delete as a recreation of an already deleted article that does not introduce any additional material asserting notability. IN instances like this, one doesn't really need to go through AfD, just ask an admin to delete and protect the page. Eusebeus 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a Recreated Article. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is nothing but a vanity page which was previously deleted. It is for reasons of vanity that the originator and subject of this article is requesting to delete the article, and my gut instinct wants to deny him his vain request, but the Misplaced Pages guidelines demand that there be no article about this non-notable newspaper employee. The only interesting part of the whole article was the information offered from the crazy protestant blog, but the blog was a highly unreliable original source. And just because that little interchange was interesting and entertaining does not make it in any way NOTABLE.OfficeGirl 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and possibly rename (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Community Education

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

Only contains a vague definition of "community education", appears to address a Scottish perspective, so could perhaps be renamed "Community education in Scotland", though would still need rewriting. I vote to delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The article definitely needs expansion (it is, after all, a stub), but the subject is definitely notable, and the current revision is so brief that it doesn't make improvements difficult to perform. Lilac Soul 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- --Rrburke 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep Seems like a promising stub. I would hesitate to rename (based on the Scottish perspective) since that would only reduce the subject's general relevance and notability. Sheffield Steelstalkers 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be a good article with some hard work. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • strong, SPEEDY delete There isn't even enough here to make a stub. There's not even a valid, informative definition of the term "Community Education" as it is meant by the article's creator. "People study this topic in school" is not helpful information. There's not even one reliable source offered. Let's clear this one off the encyclopedia and send the article's creator back to the drawing board. A "good idea for an article" is not the same as a "good article" and not even the same as a stub. If someone thinks of a good topic for an article but can't do enough work to get the article off to a proper start, then the place to go is Misplaced Pages:Requested articles. This is not even a "good start." Sorry.OfficeGirl 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Collectible. WjBscribe 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Collector's item

Collector's item (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List appears to be a WP:POV fork from Collectible and or Stamp collecting, where there are already lists & categories of collectable items. This article is little more than a magnet for WP:Listcruft. --Gavin Collins 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nguoi lai

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

Non-English expressions do not belong in the English language Misplaced Pages, unless they have notability outside of their respective languages. I originally prodded this article, which was declined with a suggestion to AfD instead. Lilac Soul 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I disagree. If the expression is notable, it is notable, in just the same way that if there are several good sources (but all in Turkish) talking about a Turkish musician, we would not delete the article. As such, if this expression has sufficient sources to pass notability guidelines, no matter the language of the expression or the sources, it should be kept. J Milburn 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No notable usage in the english language. No sources provided. Normally I disdain the Google test but in some cases - such as this - it's a landslide result. Sheffield Steelstalkers 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable usage in English. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bu$ine$$ I$ Bu$ine$$

Bu$ine$$ I$ Bu$ine$$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable, I tagged it for notability about 3 months ago and nothing has happened so far. Lilac Soul 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Being on AMG isn't an indication of notability (the initialism does, after all, stand for All Music Guide). Nor is being released on a notable label - notable labels also release non-notable albums from ditto artists. This, of course, does not mean that the subject matter per se isn't notable, but failure to establish notability for so many months is, to me, an indication of an article needing to go. Lilac Soul 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Robot Wars Episodes

Robot Wars Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an unnecessary content fork from Robot Wars; the latter could quite comfortably contain any encyclopaedic detail in the former. Mark H Wilkinson 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Unthinking Majority

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

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Kevin 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty Walls

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

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Kevin 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete When it has been released then create the article. Currently it's a non-notable single that hasn't charted and is only reported to have been playlisted on two local radio stations. Not all album tracks/singles warrant their own articles. --WebHamster 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Elect the Dead. I've replaced the inappropriate (per Misplaced Pages: Verifiability) unofficial fan site source (which, note, was also problematic in regards to its illegal inclusion of copyrighted works) with proper external sources, so the article is verifiable in its current form. If the single or song gains notability on its own, then might be time to create a separate article. Meanwhile, merging ensures that those searching for information on "Empty Walls" as a single wind up where they need to be. And, with respect to your question, gracz54, I have no idea. :) The guideline covers albums, but is a bit vague when it comes to singles. --Moonriddengirl 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was merge to List of GURPS books. KrakatoaKatie 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk!

GURPS Bili the Axe - Up Harzburk! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Out of print book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION. The article claims that the book is "notorious", but unlike Lady Chatterley's Lover, provides no independent source for this claim. The article itself does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and links to publisher, related books fail to compensate for lack of notable content. --Gavin Collins 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to Horseclans, which is a rather short article. sjgames freely admit they needed to recall this, which is the articles stated reason for it being "notorious". All of the missing information can easily be added, but ultimately as very few copies of this exist in the wild, it is unlikely that this article will grow much beyond its currently length. John Vandenberg 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure what the benefit would be of merge. If I understand correctly, this book was withdrawn when it was published in 1988. It has not been republished which indicates that this book is not only non-notable, but downright obscure. An edition sold on Ebay at $18.90 recently, so I am not sure it qualifies as a Collector's item as the article alleges. As regards GURPS Horseclans, that looks like a potential AfD candidate as well. --Gavin Collins 11:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Secret Diaries of...

The Secret Diaries of... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N - I could not find any sources to support this article, especially the name. Also, WP is not a crystal ball — *Hippi ippi 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

L A Matheson Secondary School

L A Matheson Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Here is a school, perhaps one of thousands, in Canada. Not notable, page looks like it was written by a committee of kids and teachers. SolidPlaid 08:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Day Son, This Will All Be Yours ELIMINATORJR 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Floods (Fightstar song)

Floods (Fightstar song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A song by a band I've never heard of. We need to stop these people from making pages for songs. The band itself may or may not be notable, the article makes reference to future events too. SolidPlaid 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've tidied it up now, please take a look. I think reference to future events is fine if it's sourced and not just all wild predictions. It needs some sources added, definitely. As for notability, the band itself is definitely notable in the UK and I would think that the song is notable too, esp. if it was cancelled as their first song from the new album because of the UK floods. That makes it slightly unusual (I agree that there doesn't need to be an article for every song in the world). changed mind, see below KZF 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - just because you havn't hear of them does not make them not notable. Fosnez 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Even if the band is notable, no citations indicationg notability of the song appear on the page, even after "tidying up". Who cares if a weather event caused a delay anyway? The song is not notable. SolidPlaid 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a source on the article; personally I would like to see another before a "future single" warrants an article. John Vandenberg 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
haha, i never said i'd added any citations, i just did some "tidying up" and then told you about it. KZF 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cybercontrol

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

Contested prod. Non-neutral essay in violation of WP:NOT. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Essay, OR. SolidPlaid 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan

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

This is a typical locally-maintained road. All but parts of the first two paragraphs are about the area, not the road. All that is specifically about the road is that it runs from the South Saskatchewan River to Highway 11, and that the Highway 11 intersection (presumably) has recently been rebuilt. This is not enough for an article; if it was we'd have millions of articles about similar roads that connect small neighborhoods to major roads. The road can be seen here (Google Maps). A recent similar precedent is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Warner Road, Arizona. NE2 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:V. In accordance with WP:DGFA, articles must be deleted even if the discussion fails to arrive at a consensus for deletion, when it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. In this case, the article has been unsourced since 2004, and is thus presumably unverifiable. It may be recreated once sources become available. Sandstein 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hofje van Oorschot

Hofje van Oorschot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

makes no claim to notability (indeed, the subject is a courtyard) and has no sources delete Ardent∈ 06:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was merge most per Moonriddengirl (18:11, 9 September 2007) below, and no consensus to delete the others. Whether or not these should be merged as well is an editorial issue. Sandstein 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clubby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Counterfeit Beanie Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peanut (Beanie Baby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princess (Beanie Baby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quackers (Beanie Baby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Retirement (Beanie Babies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teddy (Beanie Baby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teenie Beanies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Original Nine Beanie Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Original Nine Beanie Buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A large group of articles for individual Beanie Babies lacking notability per WP:N. Should be either moved into a list or deleted entirely.--PCPP 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What I felt would make good individual articles are beanies that were among the most sought during the fad. Also, certain events and concepts pertaining to beanies, such as Retirement (Beanie Babies), would make good articles. Xyz7890 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your best approach, then, would be to merge all of this material into Beanie Babies: making it a far better and fuller article. Then, if that article gets too big, individual aspects could be split out into separate articles. See Misplaced Pages:Summary style. I think little diddy-articles like these will always be attacked, with some justification, for a lack of individual notability; whereas I don't think anyone here doubts that Beanie Babies are sufficiently notable for an article. AndyJones 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but merge some. Some of these articles may do well on their own. In particular, I think the Teenie Beanies and Retirement articles are great. It would be best if some more time, say a month or so, be given before taking any action. Perhaps this debate will help spark more interest. Any articles that cannot be expanded beyond what they are today should then be merged into the Beanie Babies article or into one another. For example, instead of having articles on Peanut or Quackers, there can be an article simply on the beanies of high value. Tatterfly 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into fewer articles. The original article on Maple was made into "Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies." The same can be done with others OGLY 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all but especially the lawsuit one, as that is NN as a set of lawsuits and listcruft to boot. Bearian 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can help with merging: From the scope of this discussion, it has become clear to me that the majority want these articles merged. I am planning to start out by creating a new article titled Rare Beanie Babies that will be a merger of several other articles here in question. Xyz7890 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just started it. I just created the article. So far, it contains sections about Peanut and Quackers. I am trying to see what else may belong in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz7890 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this is complicated. :) I think primarily merge into fewer articles, as OGLY says. There's one for deletion, one for keeping, and one for renaming, in my opinion.
Merge The Original Nine Beanie Buddies into Beanie Buddy--neither page is long enough to merit separation
Merge Teddy (Beanie Baby) into Beanie Babies (but, note, as written it contradicts The Original Nine Beanie Babies). Also merge into Beanie Babies: Counterfeit Beanie Babies and Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits. These topics may merit inclusion in the parent page. Division is not necessary.
Merge Peanut (Beanie Baby), Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Quackers (Beanie Baby) and Clubby into the new page Rare Beanie Babies.
Delete Redirect The Original Nine Beanie Babies--I've incorporated that information into Beanie Babies and as it is only a list it should not violate copyright.
Keep Teenie Beanies, though the article needs improvement.
Rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) into Retired (Beanie Babies) and Merge Princess (Beanie Baby) into that.

Primarily I think this is a matter of organization. But note that in most instances, references need improvement. I see primarily references to an unofficial website. --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is the second time these have been put up for deletion. I don't like the use of multiple deletion in this circumstance. I say Keep them all until the person who nominated makes a case for deletion of each one. SolidPlaid 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (reset indent)Okay. I have not created redirects because I do not want to complicate the AfD process if others want to see the articles as are. However, I have merged the following--
Into Beanie Babies--The Original Nine Beanie Babies (no copyright issue; information already there); Counterfeit Beanie Babies, Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits, Teddy (Beanie Baby)
Into Beanie Buddies--The Original Nine Beanie Buddies
Into Rare Beanie Babies--Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Clubby
Into Retirement (Beanie Babies)--Princess (Beanie Baby)
Already merged--Quackers (Beanie Baby), Peanut (Beanie Baby)

If Teenie Beanies and Retirement (Beanie Babies) are to be allowed to survive, I think that's the lot of them. If the AfD is closed without objection, I will place redirects on the ones that I've merged. And I will rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) to Retired Beanie Babies. I will also add references to these subpages to the original Beanie Baby article. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work. AndyJones 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Improve All: Though I originally created these articles about Beanie Babies, I never intended for the project to be a one-person operation. I was hoping from day one that others would get involved, provide more info and references from their expertise, and best of all, photos of these beanies, which unfortunately, I cannot provide myself. I would like to see several more people join the Beanie Babies Wikiproject I proposed and to improve all these articles. Xyz7890 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all are we an encyclopaedia or a joke? NBeale 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Picaroon (t) 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Daantjie Badenhorst

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

I'm not sure about this one. I clicked on it because it was a target of vandalism, and speedied it because it looked like a non-notable bio in its vandalised state. However, I looked down, and there may have been substance in previous edits. He's a South African game show champion, with one book published. Here are the GHits FWIW: I'm not sure about notability, so I've brought it here for discussion -- Samir 06:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Omniscopic

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

This page is about original research that is not cited by any reliable secondary source Anarchia 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethic of reciprocity

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

This article is full of empty sections, is poorly sourced, full of empty sections, POV, and gives undue weight to Islam Sefringle 05:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems appropriate to have an article on the golden rule. The claim that this is not a deontological thesis is controversial, as is the claim that this is an ethic of reciprocity. The article as it stands has some valuable material that is poorly presented and some mistakes and soignificant gaps. Somewhat hesitant suggestion: rename it 'The golden rule', and allow it to be developed. Anarchia 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, appropriate subject per Anarchia but I think "The golden rule" is too ambiguous to be a good article title. John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Obviously a notable subject. In addition, while I haven't gone through the entire history yet, even merely comparing the last 100 edits leaves me wondering why so much information was "gutted" from the article. - jc37 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Other than some possible tidying up needed, I can see no good reason for this to be deleted. Pursey 12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup, and this ethical axiom surely deserves an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. Many incomplete segments but the ones that are covered are well referenced, even if the references are not formatted as such. Saturn 5 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This concept is downright religious for many people, myself included. Deletion is simply not an option, and the reasons given for deletion are somewhat insubstantial, given what a quick cleanup (as suggested) would do. I will also have to say that renaming the page "The Golden Rule" is not appropriate, as EoR is much more tangible and much less colloquial. effsee
  • Keep Except for a title that is sooooo "P.C." that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about, this is a pretty good article; of course, all articles are good in their own way, and my opinion is no more valuable than that of anybody else, so I apologize for whatever I just said that may have offended someone. Mandsford 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep - The article could use some work, but deletion is really out of the question. This is quite literally one of the most rudimentary topics in moral philosophy. — xDanielx /C 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - I can't emphasize enough how absurd it is to nominate this article for deletion. This is a fundamental concept in all religions and cultures, and is absolutely notable! It is deplorable that one of Sefringle's reasons for deletion is because the Islam section is sourced.Bless sins 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If we can't even get concensus on what this ethic is, we can't have a list of nonsense OR wikipedia editors claim are instances of it. BS's statement that it is a fundamental concept in all religions is utterly false. Having some sort of "be nice to your brother" statement in Islam only applies to other Muslims, as Muslims are ordered to wage war on non-Muslims, and are allowed to enslave them, have sex with their prisoners, etc. If this article says anything to the opposite we're doing readers a disservice. Arrow740 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
So even you want this article deleted simply because you don't seem to like Muslims.Bless sins 06:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think wikipedia should have an article stating that Islam is even compatible with the golden rule. I've removed all the OR again. Let's build the article from the ground up. Arrow740 07:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your POV, I don't know that it's valid. Can you cite sources to support it? - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Islam sub-section could use some more neutral commentary, but is that a reason to delete the whole article? It looks like it's already being neutralized, and it would take an editor with adequate background knowledge 5 minutes to finish the task. Is it worth rewriting a ~16 page article to fix a small subsection? — xDanielx /C 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Of corse it is. Especially since the rest of the article has no sources (other than that section), and is not verifiable. It makes no sense to keep garbage which isn't sourced.--Sefringle 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely you're not serious. I counted 62 offsite links, many of which were inline references. If you want to rewrite all ~16 pages so that it's perfect, great; otherwise, please respect the work of those who put countless hours into the article. It could use a modest bit of cleanup, but it does contain a good deal of comprehensive information on a subject with notability that is plainly obvious. Fix it; don't delete it for having a handful of easily correctable blemishes. — xDanielx /C 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I noted in my initial comments, the page seemed to have been "gutted". Apparently due to User:Arrow740 personal opinions about it's applicablility to certain religions. For reference, I've pasted the July 15 2007 version here for reference. (Chosen as prior to the user's initial edit to the page.) - jc37 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree it needs a clean up: too many quotations, but fundamentally (!) it is anti-bias since it points out the astonishing (IMO) similarity between all major religions. To lose that insight would be divisive, and tragic. I agree that it is also central to ethics and moral philosophy. TonyClarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyClarke (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep whose lame idea was it to delete the golden rule? None of the reasons for deletion justify deleting any article. There should be a twelve step program for deletionists. Gregbard 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of downloadable airline timetables

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

WP:NOT#IINFO. Just a directory of external links. I previously tagged this for speedy A3, as it contains no content except external links. User:DGG removed the db tag, claiming it "may be controversial". The criteria for speedy deletion as CSD A3 is; "No content other than external links of whatever kind", and apart from the introductory sentence, this is only a list of external links, so IMO this qualifies for speedy deletion. Masaruemoto 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete as failing WP:BAND and as copyvio of http://www.profugusmortis.com/bio_en.html. - KrakatoaKatie 02:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Profugus mortis

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

I was about to put a speedy tag on this one but technically there is a bit of an assertion of notability in that the band won a prize at something called the Extreme Distortion Festival a couple of years ago. Basically though I think this group fails notability as described at WP:BAND, though they do seem like they are "up and coming" and will perhaps be notable enough in the near future. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of countries receiving snowfall

AfDs for this article:
List of countries receiving snowfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO; snow falls in lots of countries, that doesn't mean a list of those countries is encyclopedic. What next, List of countries receiving rainfall? Was nominated once before in 2005, but AFD standards were lower then and many of the "keep" comments were "it's interesting", or worse. Masaruemoto 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is very professional and rich of useful information about rare and unique snowfalls made by the best world expert in this category. Forsure Misplaced Pages will loose if the list is deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.146.173 (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The list contains very interesting information (thanks to me too :-))), maybe it was the way how it was created that is questionable. Maybe the title should be changed and the content reorganized. Rare snowfall information should be kept maybe in a list Snow by countries and a list of countries where snow has never been reported on their territories may be more interesting. I have already made a list of countries where frost has never occurred, if you give me time I will create the one of countries where snow has never been reported . Anyway, you can do it easily just by picking up the countries which are not in this list ! Clarityfiend is clearly ignorant in this field, since there are DOZENS of countries where a single flake of snow has NEVER been reported. Cheers. mh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Paolo Mendoza

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

Non-notable blogger. Book is self published, no indication that it set any records in the Phillipines or anywhere else. No reliable sources to verify the article. Article is edited in a great part by the subject. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:COI. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of companies that do business with Sudan

List of companies that do business with Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR and possibly created with some kind of agenda; to quote; "Lists of this kind have been assembled to undermine the economic security of the government of Sudan". Masaruemoto 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gestalt prayer

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

Delete a belatedly contested prod which had been deleted, unsourced article about a prayer or poem, a couple thousand google hits but not much by way of realiable sources - about 1/3 of the sites indicate that the prayer is copyright ( gives 800 hits), so this could be a copyvio as well Carlossuarez46 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. List seeks to capture anything that references Dawn of the Dead or anything that is supposedly "inspired by" DOTD or any time a film poster from DOTD appears in the background with no regard for the triviality of the reference. The list tells us nothing about DOTD, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about their relationship to each other (since there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Misplaced Pages isn't a trivia guide, and is not a directory of loosely associated terms. RobJ1981 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Disappointed that this line of attempted deletions continues, and that some still do not realise that artists influence each other. To use the straight-forward example provided by the nom., when a director makes a film and puts a poster for another film in the scene he is making an explicit reference connecting the two. Not particularly subtle, but neither are in my opinion the films. Certainly clear enough evidence for the significance of the relationship. Editors who understand relationships contribute content to WP. But even editors who do not understand should avoid seeking to perpetuate the lack of understanding by keeping serious significance out when others contribute it. doesntmakesensetome, soitcantbeimportant. DGG (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please. Just because director A likes director B's movie that doesn't mean that director A has been "influenced" by director B. Filmmakers put trivial little props in their movies as shout outs to their buddies all the time. That doesn't mean that every time something from one movie shows up in another movie that the first movie has had any "cultural impact" on the other at all. And, frankly, your attempt to portray people who disagree with you as ignorant is insulting and borders on a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Extended thread about participants in this and other AFDs moved to the talk page.--Chaser - T 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Just a directory of loosely associated topics"? After all the talk of sockpuppetry above? The mind boggles. Desdinova 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Making any claim about this article other than "it is a directory of loosely associated topics and should be deleted" is factually incorrect. Any complaint about sock puppetry is meaningless whining by people who can't have their way because they don't bother tho read and understand policy. Jay32183 02:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Loosely associated with each other or loosely associated with Dawn of The Dead? The former is a misreading of WP:NOT#DIR. Artw 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, the latter is. A directory of loosely associated topics is one which contains stuff that isn't related to each other. If this were being used as analysis from secondary sources, you might have a point. No such sources have been provided. Jay32183 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That;s a completely seperate issue form your misreadfing of WP:NOT#DIR, which these days is becoming a useless subset of WP:IDONTLIKEIT through misuse. Artw 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not misreading policy, you are misunderstanding the English language. A directory of loosely associated topics is a collection of things not related to each other. By definition, I'm right, you're wrong, and the article must be deleted. Jay32183 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That would seem to be open to debate. My reading is that your interpretation is an extremist one and far from the mandate for policy-based deletion you seem to think it is. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not an open issue. By definition, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. There isn't another interpretation. Any one who says otherwise does not grasp English well enough to participate in this discussion. Jay32183 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Possibly you should reread WP:CIVIL as well. Artw 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't going to follow WP:NOT you shouldn't be telling people to follow other policies. You don't have a point. There isn't anything you can say that would result in this article not being a perfect candidate for deletion. You need to accept that you are wrong, because there is a zero percent chance that you are right. Jay32183 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it (1) is clearly notable; (2) has reliable sources (but needs more), and (3) is not indiscriminate (it has ordered sections). Some lists are cruft and some are not, per WP:LIST. Bearian 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The film is notable, and its effect on popular culture is extensive enough to deserve an article. If given a free hand I would tighten up and shorten the article. More references are needed. The cited paper by Stephen Harper (under External Links) seems good and there could be others out there. EdJohnston 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly notable per coverage like this article. Any article can be called a "collection of loosely associated items" -- take the Bush article for example, which mentions his background as a cheerleader, or the Bertrand Russell article, which mentions his lonely childhood experience. Some of the items in this article are more closely connected than others; the overall I don't think the relevance is particularly loose, and the references which are can be removed. — xDanielx /C 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No Vote - Just wanted to point out WP:ITANNOYSME - It may be a list now, but we had a featured article that started as an "in popular culture" list. That is not a reason for deletion. Whether or not the subject is notable and CAN be expanded is what should be debated. Denaar 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It can't be. No one has shown sources that it can. Jay32183 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It has been proved it can be to my satisfaction by comments above. Denaar 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Jay, what about this article? Americana is "an academic, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation . . . dedicated to the publication of exceptional American creative writing and American Studies scholarship," which publishes "three highly selective periodicals." "All of the work submitted to periodicals goes through the rigorous process of peer and editorial review." And an 11 page article dedicated to the subject is substantial coverage, IMO. — xDanielx /C 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That has nothing to do with this article. This is a list of things that reference Dawn of the Dead. Critical analysis of Dawn of the Dead is fine. This isn't even a starting point. Use that article to expand the Dawn of the Dead article. That single ref doesn't justify a stand alone article. Since it hasn't been incorporated yet just let this get deleted and expand the main article, avoiding the inevitable merge if you were to just write it here. Jay32183 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I suggest reading the whole article (as in the referenced article, not the WP article). — xDanielx /C 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The ref is not a list of every mention of Dawn of the Dead, it is analysis of its role in popular culture. The Misplaced Pages article is a list of mentions, not an analysis of the role in popular culture. The ref does not support this article. Even if it supports an article with this title, all of the existing content would still have to be removed. However, since it is a single source, use it to expand the main article, because it won't justify a stand alone article. Jay32183 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
              • So can't this source (and others, once some research is done) be used to turn the article into a discussion of the film's role in popular culture, rather than a list? If any editor is really interested in salvaging this article, they can start with that. :) --Midnightdreary 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
                • You'd have to start from either way. A single source does not usually make a stand alone article when there is a logical place to merge. This list needs to go away. If you want to use those sources expand the main article, because the new article will just end up being merged. Jay32183 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
              • It really isn't relevant that the WP article gives more specific examples than the reference which establishes notability. The subject is the same (actually the reference has a somewhat different focus, but it certain does give substantial coverage to the subject of this WP article), so it stands that the subject is notable per WP:N. — xDanielx /C 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                • WP:N isn't the issue with this article, WP:NOT#DIR is. No matter what, everything that is here has to go. Right now the Dawn of the Dead article needs its section on pop culture expanded, even if a stand alone article is justified. This article is not that stand alone article. Start by expanding that section and use summary style if necessary. It's better to split too much than to merge too little. Jay32183 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I can agree with that. I'll change my vote (struck out below) to Delete with the expectation that info from the great source (and hopefully others) in the popular culture article will be integrated into the main article (which, by the way, needs lots more sources throughout). My hope, of course, is that a dedicated editor for the Dawn of the Dead article will put some real effort into making it a substantial section avoiding cruft. If it becomes a really good section on its own, then it may be worth separating again. Any volunteers? --Midnightdreary 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Comment - If I understand correctly, it sounds like you're supporting a merge as opposed to deletion? — xDanielx /C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • You got me. I meant merge meaningful content. My suggestion at this point might be close the AfD discussion (it's getting heated and not really moving forward), give a chance for the dedicated supporters of this article some time to improve it then renominate. Anyone else think this is the most civil route? --Midnightdreary 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • WP:NOT#DIR doesn't say that we can't have directories of information (if it did, we would have to delete all lists and categories) -- just that being a directory of information doesn't guarantee inclusion in and of itself. Whether articles of this nature constitute "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" has been debated ad nauseum, and while it is probably a reasonable argument, there is nothing objectively correct or incorrect about it based on the loose policies. — xDanielx /C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • This article is undeniably a collection of loosely associated topics. There is no debate over the application of WP:NOT#DIR. There are, however, people who do not understand it and complain that they cannot make there lists of things that are only tangentially related to each other. Jay32183 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Well, except on the talk page, as noted above. Also your comments about "people who don't understand it" sounds a lot like the WP:CIVIL breach above that got you a talking too from admins. Artw 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • That's not a act of incivility. It is the truth. You quite specifically do not understand the policy and hide behind the "you're a jerk defense". Saying I'm uncivil does not change the fact that you are wrong and need to grasp a better understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. There is no debate on the issue. Jay32183 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • This is getting very boring. You were uncivil and you got a slapdown for it. You're verging on incivility again. And I am not "wrong" because it is quite clearly debated on that talk page. Artw 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                            • And this is why we may as well just close as no consensus. I hope that the editors interested in this article (such as yourself, Jay32183) at least consider the advice that has been suggested here and do their best to improve it. Even if the article isn't wholly agreed to be in need of deletion or merging, it should still stand that there is a legitimate reason to suggest those actions. There has been enough support for deletion to affirm that it's certainly questionable and that seems undeniable. I'll keep an eye on both the main article and the popular culture spin off and continue giving my advice, if that helps. Don't forget to assume good faith, by the way. --Midnightdreary 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                              • While I object to the use of WP:NOT#DIR as a deletion hammer against Popular Culture articles I think theres still a good argument for the merging or deletion of this article - it's way to specific, and most of it's content is fluff. That's a judgement call rather than policy, and others may disagree. I donlt think theres any particular reason here to call for an early close. Arn't we about done anyway? Artw 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (vote changed) - Can be salvaged. I want to make the response, too, that Misplaced Pages is dedicated to verifiable truth so just because you know in your gut that Ozzy Osbourne is referencing the movie when he happens to put four or five words together doesn't mean it's verifiable. That may mean massive cut-down on this article. But, having seen there are a couple of sources out there that do talk about the impact of Dawn of the Dead on popular culture implies some notability to the topic. So, may suggestion is all the editors here that have passionately defended the in popular culture article do that work first: cut, snip, verify and source as much as possible. Then, convert as much as possible into a prose-based discussion of the impact (which, frankly, the best sources will provide information for, rather than list form). After all that heavy work is done, we can take a look at what's left and see if it's worth merging into the main article. But, who really knows how much is left over once all the cruft is gone? As a side note, that Ozzy line is a huge speculation, and a bad one at that. Boo. =) --Midnightdreary 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Is the movie notable, of course. Is an article based on a bunch of trivial mentions on said movie notable, no way. People need to realize that on these article, we are not denying that the movie is notable, and just about every movie has effected pop culture in one way or another, but separate articles of trivia are not needed. This could easily be widdled to a paragraph or less and put back into the main article. Dannycali 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hephzibah Children's Association

AfDs for this article:
Hephzibah Children's Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Survived an earlier AfD, but I'm not quite sure how. Yes, there are sources, but all they seem to do is prove the place exists — I can't see how this warrants an article. Orphaned stub article, and seems to have been since its creation, with no sign of anyone expanding it for a year — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, just doesn't seem to be notable. Realkyhick 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I added the WP:ICU tag. I think it's possibly notable if the article could be extended. I'm somewhat reluctant to see a child charity deleted. 1redrun 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an organisation which was founded in 1897 and was covered in Time Magazine which said "Hephzibah Children's Association, named after a biblical benefactor, operates a small facility funded by the mostly well-to-do citizens of Oak Park; it accommodates children ages 3 to 11 for however long it takes them to be adopted, thus sparing them the foster-care shuffle. Even more unusual, it allows them to veto adoptive parents they don't like. "They stay here until they find a place they are comfortable with," says executive director Mary Anne Brown." There's also this story about a man who was raised in the orphanage in the 1930s who talks about it at length and this from the Jewish World Review. An organisation which has been running continuously for 110 years can't be judged on google hits alone but this one does get 34,500. I don't really understand the nomination rationale, it admits there are multiple independent sources for this association but says they can be discounted because they merely prove it exists. It's an orphanage and foster care association which does a lot of work in the local community as all the sources attest, does it have to have its own space programme to get in wikipedia? Nick mallory 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All the references - those you've given, those on the article and those I can find on Google - just mention the orphanage tangentially; thus — as I said in my original nom — this undoubtedly passes WP:V in that there are plenty of sources to prove it exists, but I'm unable to find anything to satisfy WP:N ("the source addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content"). Incidentally, you need to go to the last page of the Google search to get the true number of Ghits - the number on the front page is always wildly out. In this case, the true number of Ghits isn't 34,500 but a rather less impressive 242 — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was source and merge into Largest organisms. KrakatoaKatie 02:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Heaviest land animals

Heaviest land animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not prodding this as it will inevitably be contested and wind up here - but this is pure OR and an indiscriminate list of information if ever I saw one — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, improvements appear to have negated most of the reasons given by those !voting Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Saskatchewan provincial roads

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

This is a list of a lot of rural roads, with nothing setting any apart from any others. I don't see the use of the list, and I'm a "roadgeek". NE2 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep "This is a list of a lot of rural roads, with nothing setting any apart from any others." - Did you read the descriptions that follow each road name? One can find many things that demonstrate the roads' differences. "I don't see the use of the list, and I'm a 'roadgeek'." The list is meant to be a collection of all Saskatchewan rural roads that are not necessarily highways. It is similar to a list of highways within a province, but not all of the roads would have their own articles. Ultraflame 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete My reading of Wiki Lists: list pages should link to a page written on the subject. There is no such page talking about Saskatchewan roads, so there should be no List page. Q.E.D. MarkBul 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What about the lists of Pokémon (List of Pokémon (61-80), for example)? Few of those link to any articles (and if they exist, they are intended to be deleted before long). Should those be deleted also, even though most members of WikiProject Pokémon (myself included) support the switch to the list format? Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (Must say I have a vested interest in this topic as I was original creator)... And I will add for now just six seven rationales for keeping the article....
    • There are currently lists being prodded for deletion because they only mention in the listing articles created and in a category, so the deletion says the list has to leave, as the info is already covered in the category. In this case, the list is original and helps to create articles for the category.
    • The other rationale for keeping this article, is that many of these roads define a large part of Saskatchewan's history. As the roads which are named, for example...Haultain Road, Strehlow Road, Indi Road all mark either communities which centered around a one room school house, or town which no longer exists, or which may exist depending on the road name and place. These placenames all had a rich and vibrant history in the Sifton Last Best West immigration era. Towns, schools, elevators, needed to be about miles apart in the horse and buggy days, and the industrial revolution caused a change in Saskatchewan scenery, as mechanisation meant larger centres further apart. These roads thus named, help us to find our Saskatchewan past and roots. Cemeteries can be located for genealogists, one room school houses, and ghost towns for historians come alive with our provincial roads, for one example.
    • When traveling to locations in Saskatchewan and one needs to locate for instance.... FOREST NOOK School District # 2048 at Sec Tsp 27 Rge 8 W of the 2 Meridian Sk A near Jedburgh, P.O. the directions can only be cited using rural roads and their names, identifcation, notability make travel so, so, so much easier. Or perhaps a genealogist from England travels to Saskatchewan and wishes to locate family ancestry at Delisle Fron Lutheran Cemetery which is located at NW Section 19-Tsp35-Rge8-W3, the directions again rely on rural Saskatchewan roads which also can be located, traveled upon much much easier with naming, identification, and notability to recognize our ancestry again. Or perhaps a historian wishes to find an early homestead for a provincial or national historic site, and once again, the legal land description can only be arrived at with rural road travel. More currently our rural residents are familiar with their neighborhood, but the census taker still needs also to know the roads to arrive at their destination to enumerate our population, a rural resident requires counting and recognition of an early ethinc bloc settlement which has evolved into a current placename of history is just as important as the urban residents.
    • Fourth Rationale...Some of our newer rural industries such as Doepker Industries who are trailer makers in Annaheim, Saskatchewan require rural roads for their sustenance and survival in Saskatchewan, as Annaheim is not located on a highway, but is located on a rural road, and Doepker industries could not get its semi truck trailers into sales without travel on these rural roads.
    • Fifth rationale...As just a few points can be considered, it should be enough to suffice the beginning of an article, especially as an article on Saskatchewan Provincial roads could expand with references and sources, and not just a few thoughts which spring to mind. So an article on Provincial roads could indeed be begun.
    • Sixth Rationale...I opened nearly every provincial highway listing, across Canada....as well as a few U.S. state highway listings, and none of them have an article about the list...but do the same introductory paragraph... that the wikilink is around the state / province, and a wikilink is around the article defining interstate/highway/road but not an article pertaining to the roads and highways of that locale for any of the lists, which seems that the immediately preceding comment is not valid for a whole host of lists...I will open a few more non highway as well as non road lists shortly and see if the above comment by another user is valid for other topic lists, and if it is used in practice.
    • Seventh rationale...the governance and upkeep of the various roads are by the Rural municipality with provincial government assistance whereas the highways are provincial government upkeep. So the manpower, finances, maintenance issues are varied and diverse in various fields of endeavours. SriMesh | talk 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


      • New comment regarding Keep. Would like permission to change name of article to 'Saskatchewan provincial roads'.
  • The red links regarding roads have been deleted
  • An under construction article regarding the preliminary history of Saskatchewan roads is added to the list...which is still being sourced for more additional information and history.


      • With road article definition added of roads and how they rank compared to highways will help to define notability. There are Saskatchewan roads which are small gravel roads, and there are paved roads which are secondary highways, which connect or are concurrent with highways for the majority of their length. As the rail lines close down, roads are upgraded to highways to support local mining or oil and gas industry as well as to get grain to market. Is there a definition of notability regarding...
  • A. number of vehicles that travel the road/highway
  • B. length of road/highway
  • C. construction material of the road/highway
  • D. residential centers of the road/highway
  • E. industry of the road/highway
  • F. what the road provides travel for - people - tourism - industry - goods - products - 'why the heck was it made in the first place, most roads in Saskatchewan are not decoration, and why the heck is it maintained and why the heck is it being upgraded from road to highway or gravel road to paved road and / or why the heck is it being left to deteriorate and become abandoned....?
  • G. Just delete anything with road in the title....

Deleting anything with road in the title eliminates quite a few range roads and township roads which really have another highway name as well. The moniker range roads and township roads is a legal land description naming convention in Saskatchewan dealing with location, and many range roads and township roads are A.K.A. highways. SriMesh | talk 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

      • Me again, as the article progresses there develop two notions regarding notability guidelines one of which is functionality and amount of use and classification of road or highway as major arterial, minor arterial, collector and local, as well Notability standards comprise how many times the topic is mentioned in other sources.... showing significant coverage.SriMesh | talk 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Misplaced Pages article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Is there going to be an article on Saskatchewan roads any time soon? MarkBul 05:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article begun under construction at the top of the list article as we speak now...SriMesh | talk 05:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
We will determine if any of the roads are notable enough to have their own articles. In any case, we currently have 8th Street East (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) and Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan. Valley Road, Saskatchewan redirects to Saskatchewan Highway 762. Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why are there so many lists of local roads elsewhere (some of which were mentioned by Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr))? Do you support deleting all of those as well? I will again mention the lists of Pokémon, and you may find the rationale of merging the Pokémon articles yourself. Ultraflame 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeap, will gladly support deletion of those Corpx 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Then you may nominate them for deletion. Ultraflame 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete As per above. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Remotely interesting however. Pursey 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep After looking over it again and considering the rationale of the original creator, I'm inclined to agree that this article does have some merit. I'll give it benefit of the doubt in this case, and change my original statement to be one of Support for Keeping the article. Pursey 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: In my view, this "article" could be either kept or deleted. However, if kept, it needs a lot of reworking, including the delinking of every single one of those roads. I don't see how an article on any of those roads would ever make it to B-class or better; I would also be hard-pressed to defend any of them if they were individually taken to AFD. The articles also use the wrong disambiguation, as roads should use "(Saskatchewan)" instead of ", Saskatchewan". But returning to the point of this page...the pivotal question is whether a list of individual non-notable roads is notable by itself. Personally, I don't believe it is. --TMF 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have already stated that I do not intend for all of the roads listed to have their own articles. If you do not agree with lists of roads, do you also agree with deleting every single local road list existing on Misplaced Pages? Ultraflame 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Local road lists, yes. --TMF 03:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: At first I thought this was the list of provincial highways. However, it is not. This is too confusing, and is a red link farm, or at least a perma-stub farm. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ah yes - It did strike me at first as a list of Provincial highways. but alas - one should rightfully question the notability of the article links that have been listed here. Even if all are notable (which I would not say as such) - you're looking at perma-stubs here. Nonetheless it is essentially a red-link farm. master son 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To the two people posting above: We are not aiming to create articles for all of them, just the notable ones. The red links for the less notable roads could be removed, and then paragraphs could be written about them within the road list. Are red links THAT difficult to remove? Ultraflame 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article/list is just an enormous red-link farm. While it does have some merit, it is listing most of the non-notable roads in Saskatchewan, with no line for inclusion and non-inclusion. Provincial roads in Canada can be practically any road there is, notable or not, and from what I've seen, most of these are not. (→O - RLY?) 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Commnent to the above three red link farm deletionists. The red links in the article regarding the roads have been removed, and a listing is made to support an article about Saskatchewan roads, and a request made to change the name of the article as such. From the article development, hopefully, a concrete theory regarding road notability format is established instead of just a mad deletion rush just for the sake of deleting something. SriMesh | talk 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please also comment on this article Regional road which lists road definition and notable regional roads of Ireland. SriMesh | talk 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The new text looks fine, but the old list should still go. I don't know why you didn't make it as a new article. --NE2 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced content should not be transwikied. May be redirected to wherever appropriate. Sandstein 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vagina gentium

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

Either this is genuine, in which case it's a seemingly unsourced dicdef that should be transwikied. Or, while not quite something made up in school one day, it's a phrase that's never used. I know Google's unscientific etc etc, but I can find no legitimate non-trivial use of this phrase anywhere. As I'm frankly a bit baffled by this one, bringing it here for consensus as to whether to boot it over to Wiktionary, delete it altogether or keep-and-expand (having gone through what sorry sources I can find, I do not volunteer to do this) — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Jordanes probably knew Latin better than you or I do, so saying that the expression is "not really Latin" isn't much help. Deor 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree about saying it is "not really Latin" is not extremely helpful, SoT is correct in the original meaning of "vagina", and its usage appears to be incorrect here. Off topic, what does "FWIW" mean? J-stan Contribs 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think FWIW means "for what it's worth." The usage would be incorrect—or at least muddled—if what Jordanes meant was in fact "womb of nations"; but who's to say that was what he was trying to express? (And if he had meant "womb," he probably would have used matrix or alvus, not venter.) Perhaps the metaphor he had in mind was that of the birth canal rather than the womb. In any event, I still think the article should be deleted, since as I said above, there appear to be no sources that back up its claim that the term is used to refer to "the place where humans first appeared." Deor 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Jordanes (6th century), who described himself as as agramatus - illiterate, wrote a rather poor approximation of classical latin. Delete this entry. /Pieter Kuiper 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's So Raven: The Movie Musical!

AfDs for this article:
That's So Raven: The Movie Musical! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination after a readdition of a Prod tag. Prod reasoning was "The article lacks sources." Michael Greiner 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Utterly fails WP:ENC. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal

List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. List seeks to capture every reference or appearance of a particular building, or buildings that aren't even identified as the building except through the original research of the editor who spotted it. This list of trivia tells us nothing about the building, nothing about the fiction that contains the trivia, nothing about their interrelationship (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix the above-mentioned problems, or delete The Transhumanist    02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete almost all the mentions on the list are trivial, like where "Tobey Maguire's character rushes to board the last train of the evening back to Connecticut". Merge the significant mentions back into the main article and delete this per list of loosely associated items / trivia Corpx 09:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep . If we wanted to establish a list of every mention based on RSs, this might be a good start-- as it is, it lists a few significant ones from major works--Szilard, Hitchcock, Salinger George M Cohan. --all of these are certainly sourceable. And more recent major films: Armaggadon, and many others. If Corpx has objections to one or two, let him make suggestions on the article talk page. No, this article doesnt say everything there is to say about the buildings or the films--it does what a list article should do--collect major references together. More work needs to be done on these articles, but probably every thing here could be expanded. And no, I am not about to write this entire section of WP, but neither am I suggesting we delete it. Its so easy to say delete and so hard to add content. That's no reason to concentrate on deletion. DGG (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But we don't want to establish a list of every single time GST is merely mentioned in every single book, magazine article, TV show, movie, play, etc. because such a list is a collection of trivia. It's not that this article doesn't say "everything" about the building or the fiction. It's that it says nothing about the building or the fiction. Otto4711 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we only want to mention the significant ones. i think the significant ones are easily defined as the ones where the work mentioning them is notable enough for an article in WP. This is is similar to the practice in links in general. Remember that the individual items of content in an article just have to be relevant, not meet WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete You can tell from the title that this was written by a New York City snob. Yes, we know you New Yorkers don't call it "Grand Central Station", but the other 5,990,000,000 of us do. Even the remark "What is this, G__ C___ S___?" is as outdated as saying that something is "the cat's meow". Basically, this is the usual IPC article about mentions and sightings of the world famous "Grand Central Terminal". If we were to substitute "JFK" for GCS, it would illustrate that a terminal, no matter how famous, is not much a part of our culture. Mandsford 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That;s just an argument for rename, and the question is what the references in general. good idea to have a similar article about JFK if we dont. the cultural references are all for this specific terminal/station.
Oh Geez, don't tell me I've inspired someone to write an idiotic article about all the mentions and sightings of the JFK Airport too.... Nobody outside of "The Big Apple" gives a shit about Grand Central Station. Mandsford 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced is not a reason for deletion. But yes, like other IPC articles which should be expanded, sourced , and kept. DGG (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have mean also per WP:TRIVIA and as listcruft. However, scrolling back the article and the first part doesn't look too bad, although sources and expansion would be needed as you stated. However, the latter part is similar to every IPC or other similar types of articles which means containing a long list/collection of OR trivia. I'm changing the vote to Merge with the main article because there is some content that can be salvageable and that can be moved there providing sources are included. Then remove/delete the trivia trash per WP:NOT and that is impossible to be sourced to meet WP:V.--JForget 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER (film)

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

Delete - appears to fail WP:N. Otto4711 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to Spoiler (1998 film) - the film appears in the IMDb ], and it appears to have been distributed by a major studio, and received some sort of a public release. Seems notable enough, although the quality of the article itself leaves something to be desired. I suggest moving to an address including the date so that the page is not mistaken for a general explanation of the concept of a spoiler in a film. Terrafire 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • IMDB seeks to capture every movie regardless of any other factor so an IMDB listing by itself doesn;t mean much if anything in terms of notability. The release appears to have been direct-to-video and there do not appear to be reliable sources that are substantially about this film as WP:N requires. Otto4711 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is always a dubious criteria. We have verifiable information that can be expressed in a neutral point of view. Good enough for this editor. Terrafire 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Darwin unicorns

The article is an absolute hoax. No truth in the article whatsoever. Mattinbgn\ 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was cut. er, I mean delete. Had a "brief tryout" with the Jags. CitiCat 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Padrick

Josh Padrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN former college football player, tried-out but never recieved an offer from the Jaguars, thus never played in the NFL. Owns all those school records because the football team existed for only five years. Delete Jaranda 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - If he hasn't played for the Jags, the article should be edited to reflect that, but as a holder of several records for a DIV-IA school, he appears to meet the notability criteria for athletes, per "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Isarig 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • He owns records for a minor Division-I school that only had football for five years, no good sources that are not from FIU or trivial mentions nither. Jaranda 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Smith (American football player)

Chris Smith (American football player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable college football player, didn't play in the NFL or have much in reliable sources that are not trivial, cut in training camp. Delete Jaranda 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete and redirect to poodle hybrid. — TKD::Talk 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pom-a-poo

Pom-a-poo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination Article previously deleted via WP:PROD, Jan 2007, then tagged again for PROD-mediated deletion in Aug 2007. The first PROD held the reasoning "non-notable dog breed, verifiability concerns" while the second PROD held that "Other than membership in American Hybrid Canine Association, which only entails a $5 fee was paid, the dog has received no specific "significant coverage" in reliable, published sources. Thus, it fails notability criteria." The article was also party to a withdrawn multi-article AFD from April 2007. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bret LeVier

NN former minor league baseball player, currently plays for a semi-proffesional independent league, fails WP:BIO Delete Jaranda 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he did something in college? Either he did or did not.. If he did, put it in the article.. but the possibility that maybe he did something in college doesn't justify that article? Spanneraol 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That shouldve been a question as in "did he do anything in college?" Mbisanz 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he did something in college isn't a reason for keeping Jaranda 20:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Tobi_from_the_anime_Naruto

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

Not encyclopedic, fancruft, possibly original research, speculations, belongs to the Akatsuki main page ScotchMB 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Spies and Mercs

Spies and Mercs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely a non notable variant of airsoft. No independent sources available or provieded. Daniel J. Leivick 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle for the Palladium

Battle for the Palladium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN college football rivalry, playing a couple of games against each other doesn't indicate a rivalry, no Reliable sources on why this rivalry is notable. Delete Jaranda 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Starlight Express Original London

Starlight Express Original London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no reason to have separate articles for each individual production of a musical. There article is basically a reiteration of Starlight Express. —  MusicMaker5376 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: We have a bit of a silent dispute going on, with someone deleting from the main Starlight Express article all the information about productions that did not occur in the UK. I appreciate that having all the information from all the productions on one article is a lot to swallow, which is why I am working on breaking it down into production-specific pages. It would be rather against the spirit of an encyclopaedia to have information available and not used, simply because one person is anglocentric. Is there a reason that detail should not be gone into when it can be? Mazz0626 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: User:Mazz0626 is mistaken. No one is deleting information about productions, all of it is simply repeated twicein the article. As MusicMaker noted, musicals should not have separate articles for each new production of the musical. Unfortunately, Starlight Express is full of repeated information, WP:LISTCRUFT and fancruft. -- Ssilvers 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I dont think that Starlight Express needs to be split. While it is a large article, duplication is a large reason for that. I've looked around and not seen any musicals that have sub-articles. MusicMaker, do you know of any? John Vandenberg 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge all information into main article and delete all individual sports articles. MatthewUND 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota Class A high school track

North Dakota Class A high school track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Dakota Class B high school volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Dakota Class A high school volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable high school sports leagues, fails WP:N Delete Jaranda 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect all to North Dakota High School Activities Association as all these articles contain are championship history Corpx 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into North Dakota High School Activities Association; not only these but the others linked from the template. TerriersFan 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - in a state no larger than North Dakota, the lack of professional sports teams makes school teams like these widely followed and important to the state --MatthewUND 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to the three nominated, all of the "Class xyz" sub articles in {{NDHSAA}} should be considered part of this discussion. If the school association's sports are important to the state, I think the level of detail required would stop at articles about each sport; i.e. keep North Dakota high school football and merge the four "football" sub articles into that article. John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that idea. I've actually always thought that breaking each sport into all of these different classes was overkill. --MatthewUND 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect as above. Eusebeus 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. I support John Vandenberg's idea. If someone wants to add enough encyclopedic information that it would be better for a particular sport to stand on its own in an article that demonstrates notability, it makes sense to do so. With a merge, I think any editor is capable of reversing the merge to do just that. An article with much more content and the citations to demonstrate notability would be different from what we have here. Noroton 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should anyone care who won the championship for some sport in 1903 or even 1983? I don't think that's encyclopedic. I'd pare each of these lists until they're shorter. That way they can all fit into the larger article. Noroton 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If no one cares who one a championship in 1903 or 1983,then shouldn't articles about the 1903 and 1983 World Series be deleted???? Leopold Samsonite 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Leopold Samsonite
      • Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough: I try to be inclusive, and certainly just because I'm bored by a subject doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the encyclopedia. I wouldn't oppose an article about the 1903 championship in any sport in North Dakota if it demonstrated verifiability and common notability requirements. In other words, some editor could write an article (not just a list), cite sources to meet WP:V verification and do enough to satisfy WP:Notability, and not only would I support that, but hardly any Misplaced Pages editors would support deleting it. A list of state championship winners going back that far, even combined with other lists of championship winners in other sports, is really directory material violating WP:DIRECTORY, and I'm voting "Merge" more out of the hope and expectation that there's enough enthusiasm for North Dakota sports out there that the resulting merged article will garner enough prose content and citations to make for an acceptable encyclopedic article. In that kind of an article, a list of championship winners would do what lists like that are supposed to do in Misplaced Pages: contribute to understanding the subject in ways that prose doesn't do as well. When these things stand alone, without even some other encyclopedia article to give them meaning, there's justification for deleting them under the way we've been working on Misplaced Pages. I hate to see work go to waste and I'm sympathetic to any editor who puts in the time, so I hope an encyclopedic article results. Noroton 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —Noroton 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - looks like this is going to be a merge so we need to discuss how to do it. If we simply join the tables together, then we will get an unmanageable, world-record page length. Any thoughts? TerriersFan 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think one big article that groups together all of these lists would be really ugly and difficult to navigate. Personally, I think it would make sense to group information by sport. Instead of four football articles, merge all of that information into one football article. Instead of two basketball articles, one would be better. The only problem that pops up with that idea is that we currently only have a Class A track article...no class B track article and no generic track article. I'm not sure how we should handle this particular article.
This is what I would suggest...
That just leaves North Dakota Class A high school track. I know the above proposal may not be perfect, but it would be much better than the status quo, would be a compromise between deleting all of these articles and keeping all of these articles, and would provide a starting point from which interested editors could work on individual sports. --MatthewUND 05:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry, but there is no only limited support for multiple articles, with the exception of the way forward proposed by Noroton. To avoid a terrible long article we need to decide how to cut back the information to manageable proportions. TerriersFan 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please share your proposal, TerriersFan. Personally, I'm not terribly worried about keeping championship histories for every one of these sports. --MatthewUND 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if we can gain a consensus for the elimination of these long tables then we have a way forward since a single article is feasible. My suggestion is to replace the tables with textual summaries, picking out the highlights. TerriersFan 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - For what it's worth, I'm not sure you're correct in saying there is no support for multiple articles. John Vandenberg seems to have introduced that idea and several of us seem to agree with that proposal. --MatthewUND 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - nice work and certainly a big improvement. However, I still question whether we need to preserve the details which seem more suitable for the organisations web site. My suggestion is text based sections. An example might be:
"The first competition in the Class A girls section was in 19xx which was won by ABC. The current holders are DEF, who won in 20xx. GHI have the most titles with xy closely followed by JKL with yz. Notably between 19xx and 19xx MNO won for five consecutive years."
In many ways this would be more useful since patterns and interesting features are not obvious to the reader in the present table format. TerriersFan 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If MatthewUND feels strongly about it, I don't object to his creation, but I hope he'll consider what his purpose is for his article and how that relates to an encyclopedic purpose (does this relate to some other encyclopedic article?). Can we get some encyclopedic prose in here? I think TerriersFan's idea is a good start. Noroton 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment TerriersFan has some good ideas. I'm also glad that you think my proposal is an improvement over what we've had with all of the individual articles. Because I like TerriersFan's ideas so much, I would propose that we go with my condensed lists grouped onto one page like I've done, but also add a brief text section like the one TerriersFan is talking about for each sport. That we, we could have the exhaustive list and a summary. Best of both worlds? I think so...let me know what you think. --MatthewUND 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just finished merging all the tables into User:MatthewUND/North Dakota High School Activities Association. Take a look and let me know what you think. We should also add some summary text for each sport. I hope this proposed solution will be acceptable to other editors. If so, we could move my new NDHSAA article out to the mainspace and delete all of the individual articles. --MatthewUND 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am happy to go along with the compromise proposed above. Once summary text, along the lines I suggested, has been added for each sport then this can be moved across and the AfD closed out. TerriersFan 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, I moved my version of the article out to the mainspace. Now we should decide if the individual sport articles should be deleted or made into redirects. After we decide that, I suppose we could close down this AfD. I'm glad that we've been able to come to a very good outcome with this AfD. In this particular case, one big article seems to be much better than many little articles. --MatthewUND 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no doubt; the individual articles should be deleted. The case for redirects would be if the titles were likely search terms and plainly these are not. Consequently making redirects would serve no purpose. TerriersFan 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rigsby Sisters

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

WP:COI, possible WP:VSCA if the article was created on behalf of the Scruggs Katrina Group. Notability is questionable under either WP:ORG or WP:BIO. Though it may be salvageable, the article in its present form is in violation of WP:NPOV. Mwalimu59 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

KBCO Studio C

KBCO Studio C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This nomination is for an article about a radio show, and a long list of compilation albums they have published. The show may be relevant in the context of the broadcaster, KBCO, and is already described there. But no sources have been found to establish notability for separate articles, neither for the show nor for the albums. The article about the show just duplicates content from KBCO, even verbatim in some parts.

I also nominate the album articles, the most of which are simple track listings. Where they go beyond that, they might be copyright violations from the KBCO website; see in particular album #3 and the corresponding page from KBCO.

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Boy, I hate mass deletions like this - but, in this case, it's justified. All of the volume articles appear to be similarly formatted, all consisting of simple track listings. It appears that the albums collect live studio performances from a given year - if one of these performances were notable in and of itself, an album containing that performance might be notable for that reason - but I can find no evidence of that. The description of the show and the charity proceeds on the KBCO Studio C article might do well as a Merge into the main KBCO article - but, once merged, I'd recommend Delete for the main article and all volume articles, citing WP:MUSIC and, if the volume pages are as close to the KBCO page as volume 3 is, WP:COPYVIO. Best, ZZ ~ Evidence 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Rehevkor 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Not notable in my area, but if copyvios can be resolved, it would be like any of the other thousand album listings. Mbisanz 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost Soul (play)

Lost Soul (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent sources. The play hasn't started its run yet. Smells heavily like a COI. Drat (Talk) 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I started this page - was not intended as advertising or as anything malicious, just to help keep the Royal Court Theatre, Liverpool page up to date and to provide information about theatre in Liverpool. I concoiusly tried to not have any advertising or opinion in the article, and just kept to the facts, with references. Hopefully this is in line with Misplaced Pages rules and I hope this issue can be resolved. AndyP543 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - premature, it's hard to be notable when the show hasn't started, but it will debut in just a few days and will get sources then. A little OR: I've heard good things about the Royal Court Theatre and I don't think they'll take just anything. -- Steve Hart 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It was performed at the Unity Theatre in Liverpool I think, last year, however I didn't have any info or references so I didn't want to include it incase any of it was incorrect. I will try to update the page when I get chance to include this. AndyP543 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a valid addition. Genuine professional play at a top venue. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signalnorth (talk • contribs) 08:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Political positions of Christopher Dodd

I am nominating this article for deletion since it is a copy of the website ontheissues.org.--Southern Texas 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Political positions of Bill Richardson

I am nominating this article for deletion since it can already be found at Bill Richardson#Political beliefs. Content doesn't need to be on here twice.--Southern Texas 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 carnivore with a dab notice for zero-carb diet. — TKD::Talk 08:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivorism

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

unreferenced neologism, may serve as part of the Carnivore main page, but not as an individual article. ZayZayEM 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep and move to electrocardiogram technician with redirects and clean-up tags. Clearly a real occupation. I'll work on the article.

EKG tech

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

Completing unfinished nom by User:124.180.113.220; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete and replace with a redirect to Internet_pornography#Peer-to-peer.--Kubigula (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheggit

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

This torrent site fails WP:WEB straight off the bat. Indeed, despite these concerns being brought up in its first nomination, it was kept on the basis of it having inherited notability from Empornium (despite the fact notability is not inherited), a site which has now been deleted on the basis of *also* being non-notable. This could even be a borderline CSD A7 article, but I've brought it here due to it having been AfD'd before. Delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I would be surprised if it could pass WP:V (I'm not convinced it does now) due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable sources for such topics. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too really, but only because of the saga discussed in that article. Had that not happened, I definitely don't think that it would've been notable enough; and Cheggit's only claim to fame is through that, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I just requested a DRV of Empornium - Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_26#Empornium_.283rd_nomination.29 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.