Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 11: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:01, 11 January 2008 editLatenightsgalor (talk \| contribs)4 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:25, 11 January 2008 edit undoQuoth nevermore~enwiki (talk \| contribs)715 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Lauterbach Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	__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/Maria Lauterbach}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moff}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moff}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Man-Woman Impossibility Theorem}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Man-Woman Impossibility Theorem}}

Revision as of 04:25, 11 January 2008

< January 10	January 12 >

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 delete, as for better or for worse, policy trumps consensus in these situations and it's clear that WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, has been violated in this case gaillimh 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maria Lauterbach

Keep Deletion proposed by Arbeit Sockenpuppe, who gave the reason: "NN bio". This is a user that claims to be an administrator, although nobody knows that for sure. That user added a prod tag, although from the sources and references in the article it is clear that this is not an NN bio. I erased the prod tag, and added the afd tag. I don't want this article to be deleted, but I certainly don't want it to be deleted because of the prod tag without any discussions. Quoth nevermore (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There was no need to create an AfD since the article has a PROD tag on it. But since the AfD has been removed, would it be acceptable to remove the PROD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Arbeit Sockenpuppe is the account of User:Y for use when he is at work. James086 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete - While it has plenty of sources, it seems to be more of a news article than an encyclopedia article. See point 5 of WP:NOT#NEWS and the second paragraph of WP:N#TEMP. If this turns into a large controversy it should be kept however. James086 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to make an encyclopedia article out of here, at the moment this belongs on Wikinews (if it belongs anywhere). BLACKKITE 08:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough. And if Misplaced Pages is not for news articles, then we should delete articles about all missing people as well. Including Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Taylor Behl, Natalee Holloway, etc. --Adi Sinaga (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment See WP:ALLORNOTHING. Arguing that this is not a notable missing persons topic is certainly possible to do in good faith, particularly given the lack of consensus or guidelines regarding such articles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:ALLORNOTHING is just an essay. I'm not obliged to follow it. --Adi Sinaga (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep certainly the subject of plenty of 3rd party coverage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm not convinced of the long-term importance here, but there has been quite a bit of national attention paid to the story due to the military angle. Regardless of outcome it is likely to end up as a high-profile UCMJ case of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article should be expanded with information about the suspect(s), the rape, her condition, possible abuse of women in the military, and so on. Amputation (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP1E and per our inability to write a biography of this person because her life was uninteresting. If he disappearance/potential death are notable events (which they could be), let's delete this and include a mention on the relevant army article, or perhaps on MWWS#Possible_instances_of_MWWS, where she is already listed. This is an encyclopedia, and we report on things of interest to the civilization, not on last week's crime victims. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Every person on that list has their own article. Angrymansr (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS youngamerican (wtf?) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Then please start afd's on all of them instead of constantly pointing to an essay and telling everyone the crap is out there. We can start by deleting every missing or murdered white female from Misplaced Pages who was not famous, as well as people like:
Rodney King, he is known for one thing, being beat up by police
Abner Louima, also known for one thing, being sodomized
Monica Lewinsky, we all know her one event
Jena 6, they just jumped a kid. That happens every day in NYC.
Latoyia Figueroa, non-white woman who went missing and later found murdered
Tamika Huston, see above
Jessica Lynch, Lori Piestewa & Shoshana Johnson captured during Iraq invasion

I look forward to participating in the cited articles Afd nominations. Please leave me a message when the Afd's begin so I can get my popcorn ready. By the time we delete all of the so-called crap all we'll be left with is the beloved Pokemon characters. Good luck! Angrymansr (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, no need to get testy. youngamerican (wtf?) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to get testy, but you only said that to avoid answering his question. How about all those articles he mentioned? --Reklamedame (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. BLP concerns and the fact that this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep With BLP no longer a concern, I don't see the difference between this and anything Adi Sinaga cited. If it's sourceable, it usually ends up being notable as well. We get so wrapped up in policy, that it becomes counter-productive. WP:Ignore all rules Angrymansr (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MWF. Thatcher 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which you just wrote? Classic! :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- A perfect summary. BLACKKITE 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, Notable enough for me.--Joebengo (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep There are other instances, such as the case of Suzanne Marie Collins which are similar in nature and this one is perhaps even a larger issue since she was pregnant and allegedly murdered by another Marine. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If you delete this, you might as well delete Laci Peterson and every other murder victim that gains national attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.119.122 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep The national attention she's received makes her notable. Phobophile (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO, unless we ammend that guideline to include every missing/murdered white woman who causes a temporary media sensation in the 24 hour news cycle of the United States. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Since there will be a (non-military) murder trial in the criminal courts (which itself will be a notable Misplaced Pages article), there will be a need for this article to be kept. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep oodles of third party coverage, agree with Inetpup on the fact of the court case and the large amount of national attention Doc Strange (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Classic WP:BLP1E. If this unfortunate death shows some signs of longterm notability then create Maria Lauterbach murder. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plus, it also falls into line of the Category:Murdered pregnant women. Murder being the number one reason for deaths of Pregnant women in the U.S. 1,800 are killed every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that they all get articles, or just the pretty white ones? youngamerican (wtf?) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If articles like Natalie Holloway, Dru Sjodin and Jimmy Hoffa exist so should this. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first two, I would point to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and, for Hoffa, he clearly meets WP:BIO for his work as a union boss. However tragic this might be, Lauterbach is just a person known for going missing and having the case sensationalized by the media. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment So the Dru article is crap, even though the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry is in her name? Please explain that one. Angrymansr (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured that someone would say something about Holloway before Sjodin. Anyway, this discussion should really stick to the facts about this and only this article, but I'll still respond... I see nothing regarding her inclusion worthiness except for being a well-publicized murder victim who happened to be the case du jour when Congress finally got around to passing a popular election year law. In her case, a redirect to the article on the law would be the best bet. But, yea, until a law is passed in honor of Lauterbach, Sjodin still has more notoriety than Lauterbach. youngamerican (wtf?) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dru should definitely be two sentences in the article about the registry and a redirect thereto. I would vote for that. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's impossible at this moment to make a pronouncement regarding the long-term notability of this incident, but right now, it's evident that there has been nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We need to be on guard in editing the article, to eliminate BLP issues, however. --SSBohio 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of coverage from reliable sources shows she is notable, at least for the time being. This can always be brought back to AfD later, but right now I don't see any question about notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would note, however, that Death of Maria Lauterbach (or something similar) would probably be a better title. Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep; she's the center of a national news story and brewing military scandal that's getting daily and ongoing attention by nationwide media outlets. -- Sethant (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It seems now that the killer is one of the Marines. This has big repercussions about how women are treated in the US military, and whether cases of rape have been covered up in the past. As the story goes on, this article might be moved to another more appropriate title, but not deleted. --Reklamedame (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2008 (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 result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. Contrary to the nomination, this article was properly tagged, on 2008-01-02 by EEMIV (talk · contribs), when discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination). This article was re-created by Jecowa (talk · contribs) 29 hours after its deletion by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs), by copying and pasting the Google cache of the old page, claiming that in the edit summary that xe "copied verbatim from source licensed under the GFDL". (Copying GFDL content requires more than that. Please read the Text of the GNU Free Documentation Licence.) Xe later removed a request that this be re-deleted per the prior AFD discussion with the edit summary "nominate for deletion". Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Moff

This page was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination) but not properly tagged. It consists of in-universe discussion and repeated plot summary without any real world context. Though sources exist for Grand Moff Tarkin, for instance, there is nothing to show notability for this particular concept. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination): I thought that closure applied to both articles? Did the closing admin just forget to delete this one? In any case, it's purely in-universe, without real-world context, without sources, so should be deleted. (And, once deleted, a recreation as a redirect to Grand Moff Tarkin is of course possible, as redirects are cheap.) Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked) by User:Metropolitan90, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Man-Woman Impossibility Theorem

Unverifiable, hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the speedy deletion list? It's quite obviously a joke. So, yeah delete if you want it in bold. Scythe33 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hoaxes are not speediable, see WP:CSD. Could be deleted as blatant vandalism if an administrator wants to make that call. Accurizer (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- … and for good reason. It takes more than 1 pair of eyes to determine whether something truly is a hoax. See the discussion of the Swiss cheese model in the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. For an example of the Swiss cheese model in action from just the day before yesterday, where 2 pairs of eyes thought that something was a hoax but the 3rd found that it wasn't, see Einstein - Hopf Drag (AfD discussion). Indeed, see Swiss cheese model (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonny (robot)

Contested speedy, contested prod. Entirely in-universe, no potential for expansion. Currently just a plot story, nothing that isn't already in I, Robot (film), nothing worth merging. Consensus on talk page seems to be in favour of deletion. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom because everything in the article is already mentioned in the I, Robot article. Kyriakos (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

delete why cover him when do not cover the other characters. This movie is not notable enough for it's character's to have article.YVNP (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't even fully reiterate the significance of Sonny. The page feels incomplete.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, almost entirely a plot summary concerning a character not notable outside of the I, Robot film. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I tend to disagree with the others since WP has numerous articles about fictional creatures and character appearing in other shows (e.g Charmed among others)and since these articles are for some reason kept on WP because their shows are famous,Why Should We Delete This One? and may I add that this character is important to the plot of the film and is heavily featured. Λua∫Wi se 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Toy Break

Procedural nom as Prod removed November 2007. Does not meet WP:WEB and lacks WP:RS reliable sources for verifiability. Was borderline Speedy on this one, but thought it best to Afd just to be sure it's more than G7. Breno 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable blogwebpodnet2.0cast website. Fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

The result was redirect to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing. The history of the article has not been deleted. While I saw nothing to merge personally, given the brevity of information on other victims, it would not be inappropriate to merge some of the material provided that the merger is properly handled as per WP:MERGE. In the event of such a merger, of course, the history of this article must be retained for GFDL compliance. --Moonriddengirl 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tara Whelan

AfDs for this article:

Tara Whelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete (at a minimum Redirect/merge briefly with names of other victims to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing) - there are no substantive reasons for her article to remain. The main proponent (User:Spaingy) for keeping the article has since been indefinitely blocked. It is pure racism to allow her to remain just because of her nationality, when being a victim of crime or terrorism is not in and of itself notable as everyone knows (WP:BIO, WP:N). What about the four other people killed in the same incident? Didn't they have families who loved and cared about them? Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, or redirect/merge to page of incident.. Either works fine form my point of view. Two One Six Five Five 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Half the article is about the funeral, classic WP:NOT#MEMORIAL material. If it is moved to a neutral article on the attacks that covers all victims that would be the minimum necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete this per failing WP:BIO and WP:NOT, and redirect her name to the terrorist attack article which we should go about creating with some merged content from here - does the article on the terrorist attack even exist? That should be notable, and she individually is not notable.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the article about the terrorist attack doesn't exist. It really should. I guess we did things differently back in 2005.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think every terrorist attack should have an article, necessarily, though if one is well written I won't vote it out. For the most part we have very random coverage of stuff like this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing. To address the evident issues raised here (individual possibly not notable under WP:BIO, but event is notable) I have created a new article on the bombing. (Using 2005 Jaunpur train bombing as a template.) Any relevant content should be merged. However - as noted - undue weight should not be given to one victim. (And the detail on Ms. Whelan's funeral should not be merged in my opinion.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, per eveyone above. I don't see how this article can be permitted with WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. hateless 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Kusadasi bus bombing as per previous. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the bombing article, possibly a smerge but really we shouldn't give the victims disproportionate coverage. And we should find the names of the non-Western victims. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Have added names of "non-western" victims to the separate bombing article. (It took me a while to find because there are few English language sources that identified the victims ). Per my previous, I still agree with redirect/smerge. Personally I'm not sure if there is actually anything "relevant" in the article on Ms. Whelan that hasn't already been covered. As noted, if much of the funeral/bio detail were merged, it would cause balance issues. At this point I'd say a straightforward "redirect" would be least controversial and would represent consensus from this AfD and the previous one. Guliolopez (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing as specified above. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, but it can't hurt to have a bit of material on the victims in the main article, as well as a redirect for people looking for this person. Lankiveil (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

The result was keep, sources have been added. Canley (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Romit Raaj

This person isn't notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages and no reliable sources given.

Delete - not notable. Macy's 123 review me 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- has no WP:RS to establish notability. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Country of origin unknown, no WP:RS, no WP:NOTE, nothing! Two One Six Five Five 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. We should avoid WP:BIAS. He might be borderline notable in India. Google comes up with some interesting results but I'm not sure these are enough.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like a reliable source.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep ~~(conditional)~~(see below) - unless an editor in India agrees to a delete. I found the article only because it incorrectly linked to the rugby disambiguation page. I immediately added three links: one to Zee TV and one to each of the two TV shows. India is is the country with the world's largest english-speaking population, I think, so this article is at least as relevant to the english Wilipedia as an article on (say) an actor who was a regular on Dallas. But unless you watch Zee TV, you cannot really have a valid opinion. -Arch dude (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Valid opinions are based upon the existence of sources, to demonstrate that the the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied, and upon our various content policies, including Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research. They aren't based upon what an editor watches on the television. That way madness and chaos lies. HisSpaceResearch approached this the right way, by looking for sources and citing them so that their provenances and depths can be evaluated. You have not. Please learn from xyr example. Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  - OK, let me re-phrase: based on the borderline reliable sources found by HSR and noted above, we should lean toward keeping this article. -Arch dude (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I just did some quick research, This guy's name is also spelled "Romit Raj", and there are several articles about him (not just mentioning him) in what appear to be the online versions of major Indian newspapers. I have added the references to two such articles. I would appreciate it if someone familiar with the Indian press can verify the nature of the sources. -Arch dude (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep per User:HisSpaceResearch. One good source has been found, and I'm hopeful that more can also be found. Lankiveil (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

The result was Keep. --VS 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ionian Village

It's an article about a private summer camp for Greek youth. There is no indication of why it is a notable summer camp, other than the fact that is was established by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, which I don't think makes it notable enough to warrant an article. Watchsmart (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability. J-ſtan_{User page} 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't really say what makes it notable, and I don't think we have all summer camps listed here, or want them to be. Pharmboy (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

*Merge with Iakovos, Archbishop of America, who founded the camp . I can't find enough info to support an independent article, but it seems relatively important to Greek Americans, so we should mention it somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to weak keep, as I seem to have overlooked a substantial article about the place from the NYT. (Diane Sierpina. "Ancient culture, modern campers". New York Times. October 8, 1995. CN25.) The NYT also has a short piece about Jackie O's 1975 visit ("Notes on people". New York Times. July 8, 1975. 22). And this Greek News article should count for something. This topic may have more potential than I thought; lets give it time to grow. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. Doesn't seem to be that notable an institution. Lankiveil (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC). Keep as per discovery of sources by User: Zagalejo. Lankiveil (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Merge and redirect looks appropriate here.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo's findings of secondary sources that are about this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I am the original author and a new member (learning the ropes). From your comments I understand better the need for relevance and detail that ties this submission to the greater body of global knowledge - so please let me add relevant detail. Please re-consider after you see my edits. Thanks. Planetcast (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What you need is two things: At the start of the article, you need to 'assert notability', meaning establish why this is more than just another camp. This can only be done, of course, if the camp is notable for something in particular. Second, you need to include citations from reliable sources (wp:RS is the policy). This would include newspapers, larger websites (not blogs) and such. If the camp is not notable, and just 'a really nice place', then it probably won't pass. Misplaced Pages isn't for listing every camp, business, school, etc., and as an encylopedia, has to limit itself somewhat to notable topics, as defined by the policy WP:Notability and others. If it does have writeups in the New York Times, then link to the NYT article in the camp article, then come back and say so. You are better off if you do that when you first start an article, to avoid all this AFD mess. Pharmboy (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some refs. The NYT articles aren't available online, as far as I can tell, but I'm sure you could find them in a library if you had questions about them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY _contribs 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per national newspaper sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Vincent

Seems just short of WP:BIO. I can't find any sources on the subject herself. There's a bit more for Donkey Cons, but seemingly no reviews by reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, "She admits to not being able to bake." Well, golly gosh, what useful info! No indication of notability, and just being an editor of a magazine won't push you over the line in my view. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Delete, If there is a notability here it is not readily apparent through searches. Provide some meaningful references and clean up the article and it can be revisited. --Stormbay (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY _contribs 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidents Sketch

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches

Articles for deletion/Accidents Sketch (2nd nomination)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was previously involved in a train wreck AFD which yielded no consensus. Now found in the PROD workstream; PROD nominator states "fails WP:EPISODE guidelines as there are no reliable sources to prove it's individual notability. Also fails WP:PLOT". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Monty Python has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No individual notability.Kww (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Up to you, but its pretty much all discussed here --http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Several_Monty_Python_sketches. As previously mentioned, there was no resolution. I suggested merging into a larger episodic summary, but got no response. Also, I haven't gotten around to doing the merge, but plan to do so. thx.--10stone5 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Article fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION and there is absolutely no assertion of notability for this particular episode. Suggesting merge over redirect as the list article has no episode summaries. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.

—AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per (original) nom. No evidence of individual notability. Tevildo (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete - WP:NOR. DS (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Selfo

Cannot find any reliable sources for this game, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. My Gsearch didn't hit anything remotely related to a game named Selfo, so it appears to fail WP:V and therefore also WP:N. No idea if it's a hoax. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There's actually a source cited in the article, in a "References" section. It's a paper by a Francisco J. Vico, an associate professor at the University of Málaga, undoubtedly one and the same as Fjvico (talk · contribs). It's not actually a published paper, however. There's nothing at the URL given. Nor is it a peer reviewed journal article. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no indication that this is a notable board game. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
In my opinion, the discussion of whether the description of a newly proposed game is or is not trustworthy is out of context here. The class of games (not just a game, indeed) that I have identified and described in an internal report of Universidad de Málaga is an original contribution to the field of connection games. This fact has been checked by myself. But it is true that it lacks from evidences (so to say) to claim that this proposal is popular enough in the community of strategy games. For this reason, I have decided to delete the article and perform an extra effort of diffusion before actually reporting it in WP. Thanks for your comments. fjvico (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
- The class of games that I have identified and described in an internal report is an original contribution to the field of connection games. — Please read our Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research policies. You have come to the wrong place. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. It is a tertiary source. It is not a publisher of primary research. Please publish original contributions to a field in an appropriate academic journal. Uncle G (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shane Minor

Claims to be a former Mr. USA, which is a redlink, so I doubt that it's a real notable claim. Only other claims are modeling in Playgirl and three roles in redlinked films -- a look at IMDb seems to indicate that these films are quite non-notablle. Overall, he doesn't seem to have enough going for him to pass WP:BIO. (Note: If this page is deleted, may I ask that the content from Shane Minor (singer) be moved to Shane Minor?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. My Gsearch didn't net anything beyond the IMDB and TVguide that could possibly be used to assert notability, and beyond the first page they're all directory entries for the singer anyways. The IMDB and TVguide hits don't show anything that really seems to indicate notablity other than a few minor roles in a few movies. He fails WP:N due to lack of coverage. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, a very minor actor and male model. Not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Obviously, I disagree since I took the time TO NOTE HIM. He was a Mr USA in 1994. That information is easy enough to verify by checking the list of previous title holders. Also, he was one of the earliest pioneers in using the multimedia to offer personal trainer coaching via cd-rom. He has worked as a fitness and clothing model as well as dabling in acting.

Let me guess... no pun intended? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to claim credit, it was completely unintentional! Lankiveil (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Listen, the guy was a Mr USA. That claim can be verified by checking the list of previous Mr USA title holders. The fact that no one decided to write about it on Wiki is hardly surprising since the title is no longer being awarded. Shane was a celebrity in the 1990s. You deleted his entry which seems odd. The purpose of Misplaced Pages seems to be a popularity contest that only gives recognition to certain select individuals. It is NOT a source of reliable information because of this.

The result was keep per WP:HEY and WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hazard High School

Article does not indicate the significance or importance of the school. VivioFateFan 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Lacks claims to noability or sources to back up such claims. I'd like to see the article given a little time, though, as it was just created today. A PROD might've been more appropriate. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY _contribs 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete with no prejudice against recreation.Keep Generally speaking, all high schools are notable, but they should be more than a mere directory listing. ~~If an editor significantly improves this article during the AFD, by adding substantial content I'll probably change my !vote.~~Changed !vote by my reasoning listed originally JERRY _contribs 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) JERRY _contribs 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable basketball program, among other things. I've added a few refs to the article, and I'll add some more soon. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ Keep. I was originally going to !vote "weak delete", buy my vote got edit conflicted by Zagalejo's post aove. The refs added are a good start (although it would be nice if those basketball players could be bluelinked), and given that the article's only a couple days old I'm willing to give it a little time to grow even with more sources coming in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish Misplaced Pages:Notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now, ie until we change policy on high-schools entirely: this is as good as the high-schools articles could expect to be now. Greswik (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalego, who has substantially improved the article. Important history has happened there as included and cited. There's more to be added about the school's academic progress over the years. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per improvements. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball LDS

Non-notable Dragon Ball fan fic. This is nothing at all official, simply fan fiction from a forum. Redfarmer (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. There is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, particularly on the Yahoo group mentioned below, but it's unclear whether this substantially affected participation here. Nevertheless, the article is 11 months old and still has no WP:V or WP:RS, despite being brought to AfD and this issue specifically mentioned. Pigman☿ 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

DBMM De Bellis Magistrorum Militum

No evidence of meeting WP:N, no Reliable sources, prod removed by SPA, Delete Secret 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No asserted notability. --Blanchardb--timed 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, all that Google shows is the home page for the rules themselves, as well as various directory entries and the like. Nothing that would establish that this is a notable or important ruleset. Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep The rulesets produced by Barker and the WRG usually have a large following. I expect that there will be coverage of this new edition in magazines like Miniature Wargaming. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- But til then, no sources exists Secret 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It may well have been written up already - I don't usually read such magazines myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless someone can produce such a citation, the fact remains that there appear to be no third-party, neutral sources on the topic. The article can go away then, until someone writes about it, and then perhaps an article will be appropriate. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Its the youngest of the dbx rules sets from phil Barker, the man that has dominated ruleswriting for ancient medieval miniature wargaming worldwide for over 25 years, the site will quite probably evolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.196.131 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic merit is not like an Erdos number...simply being associated with some other remarkable topic does not make a topic itself remarkable. No-one is complaining here about the amateurish quality of the website, so that it may 'evolve' is irrelevant. What is being discussed here is whether these rules are sufficiently important to merit an encyclopaedia article in their own right, and not, say, a mention in the article on one of the more well-known DBx systems. At the moment, it seems that they are in their infancy, and it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to proselytise for them, nor to enshrine them in an encyclopaedia when it is not known to what extent they will really 'take off'. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

their popularity is not in question...or should not be. They have considerable followings worldwide already - certainly not as much as their antecendants, but substantial enough to have had competitions run at various wargaming conventions, and a substantial discussion group. The article does not "proselytise" in any manner I can recognise - it seems to be a reasonably factual and brief account of their provenance and differences from previous rules they have been developed from.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If all you know about the DBMM rules, their notability, and Phil Barker is what you get by Googling them then you probably aren't qualified to pipe up about whether/why they should be deleted. Also, why is notability a criteria? If something is notable then the majority of people are probably already familiar with it and won't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noworld (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That 'argument' is fallacious. Winston Churchill is surely notable, yet most people would probably want to consult an encyclopaedia article about him if they haven't the stamina to wade through Martin Gilbert's tedious hagiography. I agree that Google is not an absolute guarantor of notability, but it often does give a fair indication of a subject's relative importance. You also seem to suggest that only those with access to 'privileged' information (such as through being adherents of various iterations of DBx rules) are 'qualified' to 'pipe up' on the topic...that is equally fallacious, and if a topic requires 'insider information' to establish its notability, then it cannot be encyclopaedic; nor can a reasonably neutral and well-referenced article be written about it, placing it outside Misplaced Pages's editorial guidelines. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Wargaming may be a minority hobby, but it still has considerable numbers practising it worldwide. The author of these rules has been a major player in the hobby since 1970 or before, and his previous set of rules () arguably the most published and most played set of wargames rules to date....and if they aren't then the next likely contender is - written by hte same person. The rules author is not the author of this page and so far his comment on it is limited to it being essentially correct and why would anyone want to delete it (see http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/57237). If you're going to use google as a criteria I suggest "phil barker DBMM" wil provide you with many more links. --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'; interesting that User:Noworld doesn't know that either, though it is a common barbarism. I find it disturbing that this discussion has been linked to by an external mailing list...Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's normal that most stuff about these rules is from the author - they are a new set of rules! The rules have been reviewed in the wargames press quite extensively, notably in the Society of Ancients Journal, Slingshot and also online. A good example here http://www.box.net/shared/n18bvwh4o4 Pyruse (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— Pyruse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, but the 'Society of Ancients' and its journal 'Slingshot' are hardly what could be called independent, unbiased, non-partisan sources when it comes to the productions of Phil Barker, are they? And the online review you link to was written last night and placed on a free file hosting site. By someone who is obviously a fan of Barker's work. Such things are two a penny on the Internet (nay, cheaper), and don't really prove anything at all. Anyone wanting Misplaced Pages to shill for their product (and I am not suggesting this is going on here, merely pointing out a hypothetical possibility) could get their claqueurs to write 2 dozen 'reviews' about it, post them on various blogs, file storage sites, and so forth, and then go to Misplaced Pages to point to the reviews as 'evidence' of the product's importance. That's why Misplaced Pages has a policy on what is a reliable source, and what isn't. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the DBMM page was written by the author, and the SOA and Slingshot are, in fact, completely independant of Phil Barker and he often comes for criticism from them. The current editor of "Slingshot" is a proponent of a competing rule system. I put the review there as soon as it was announced - AFAIK the author of the review is not even aware there is a DBMM page on Wiki, and has spent at least het last couple of years playing a competing product. there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If 'there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web' (and in print as well, since no-one can produce a citation either), then it cannot be as important or influential as is claimed, and nor could an article be produced which relies only on third-party, verifiable and reliable sources. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fair enough, the chap who wrote these rules may be considered by some wargamers to be the wasp's nipples as far as that thing goes, but the DBM community is a subset of the wargaming community as a whole which does seem to have a tendency to claim disproportionate prominence for itself. That, of course, isn't a reason to delete, but it is background. The real reason why this should be deleted is that it is not referenced, and likely not able to be referenced from third party sources, at least until the ruleset attains (if it attains) the ubiquity afforded to its predecessor, which has an article. In other words, 'notable by association' is not really an argument, and as things stand, the ruleset isn't encyclopaedic when considered on its own terms, though a sub-section in the DBM article may not be inappropriate. If it takes off, then it may warrant its own article, sourced from third party publications, but until then, one may be forgiven for thinking that Misplaced Pages is being used by this ruleset's fans as either an altar or a pulpit. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

a subsection of DBM page would not be apprpriate - DBMM is as different from DBM as DBR is, and although it is a development of DBM it is most definitely not "DBM 4.0" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair point, then I guess it shouldn't be mentioned at all, at this point in time. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Seed

Per the notability guidelines for future films, this article does not warrant existence. This was a project that was announced at the beginning of 2007 with the two cast members, but it has not entered active production since then. IMDb shows that it is only in pre-production, and a sentence (albeit unverifiable) in the article says the project is currently inactive. Proposed deletion was challenged, so here it is. No issues with recreation if it can be shown that production began on this project. Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - if it's inactive, and it doesn't appear to be getting much in the way of coverage at this point, it should probably be deleted. If it starts to get more buzz and seems headed for release, then it could easily be recreated using reliable sources then. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, or can be shown to be in production currently, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was merge and redirect to New York City secession. The page is mostly unsourced but sources produced during the AfD demonstrate that this is a genuine movement and I shall include those in the merged article. TerriersFan (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Upstate New York statehood movement

Article does not provide any references for the supposed secessionist movement it purports to discuss. Indeed, there is no evidence that an Upstate New York statehood movement exists or has ever existed. Poshua (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For note, this article was nominated for AfD in 2/2007, and no consensus was reached because some users suggested the page could be more properly sourced or merged, however there has been no change since. Poshua (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral: Report on Secession, Blog on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrl build (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) \
Merge/redirect to New York City secession. This isn't actually a separate movement -- in fact the majority of the support for the split seems to come from upstate, and the only legislation that would effect it seems to have been a longstanding pet bill of Randy Kuhl. Of course, the bill would leave the name "New York" on the city plus surrounding counties and give the name West New York to Upstate, but it still amounts to the same thing. NYT and a minor mention in ISBN 0823221423 are about all the substnative coverage I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to New York City secession as above, as they basically amount to the same thing. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Redirect per above. That's a great idea. I have heard of it being a New Yorker (although I know this would not meet WP:N). It is a movement that exists and worth mentioning. Although the lack of cites in this article does bother me a bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge (with redirect, of course) to New York City secession. Two sides of the same coin. Besides the citations above, I've seen newspapers and political propaganda which gave substantial coverage to the topic. None is in my reach at the moment (workplace). I'm in John "Randy" Kuhl's state district and it's not the subject of much real debate or practical discussion of consequences, just used as an excuse to bitch about somebody else telling us what to do, exploited for its emotional appeal rather than being considered as a serious proposal. Barno (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment how about Division of New York state into two states ? IT removes bias towards NYC or Upstate NY as the focus of the secessionist movement. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was KEEP. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Schmuck (pejorative)

Keep this and make the connection that Schmuck was used coloqually as a reference to the "Family Jewels" and thus the pejorative use came into being.

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary the information contained within the article is nothing more than what would be found in a dictionary (see the Wiktionary article wiktionary:schmuck) such as the definition, usage and etymology - along with a smattering of original research. The word is already mentioned in the article List of English words of Yiddish origin and commonly used; that does not mean it should have an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. I don't see anyway this could be expanded to be encyclopedic. Redfarmer (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep As it stands, the article is only a little more than a dictionary-type definition, but that is not to suggest that there is not grounds for expansion. The word itself certainly has a good deal of significance on a cultural level, as it represents one of the most prominent words of Yiddish origin to be assimilated into the standard English lanquage, making it a very notable aspect of a culturally significant linguistic aspect of history. As such, I would be very surprised if there is not more material relating to the history of the word's entry into and usage in the English language, material which could be used to help make this into a well-rounded encyclopedic article. Calgary (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We already have an article on Words of Yiddish origin that discusses how such words enter the English language. We don't need article on each individual word repeating the same discussion. There's nothing that can be said here that cannot also be said in the actual encyclopaedic article dealing with the subject of words that have Yiddish origins. The "cultural significance" argument is bogus. The subject that sources, such as ISBN 0817311033 for example, discuss is the loaning of Yiddish words, by groups or as a whole, into other languages, not the individual words. Etymologies of the individual words belong in the dictionary, at wikt:schmuck for example, which Words of Yiddish origin can easily cross-link to, just as wikt:Category:Yiddish derivations cross-links back to Words of Yiddish origin.
This article, and indeed the duplicate disambiguation at Schmuck, should never have been created. What should have happened is that the dictionary content should have been kept out of the original disambiguation article (which is now a disambiguation-within-a-disambiguation at Schmuck (surname)) in accordance with our Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary policy. The article did sport a link to the dictionary in a big shiny box in its top-right-hand corner at the time, after all.
Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Delete this, delete the wholly unnecessary duplicate disambiguation Schmuck, and let's have the name disambiguation Schmuck (surname) back where it once was. Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep One of many articles that goes beyond a dictionary definition, with Rosten source cited. Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A subject that could be expanded fairly easily; ought to be possible to find sources discussing its fate in the English speaking world, and its (non)recognition as an obscenity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep That there is an article on such words in general does not mean that individual ones aren't notable. this one is, and there will be sources. There's a great deal more to be said. DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that in german, 'Schmuck' means 'jewelary' or 'decoration' so I'm not sure if a shop in Germany is a good example. RobinGoesWiki (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Me and Orson Welles (film)

Article about "upcoming" film. Mostly speculation. Fails WP:CBALL. Redfarmer (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article (Me and Orson Welles (film)) is fully accurate, as the author of the novel was my AP English teacher last year and I just spoke with him January 3rd regarding the matter, among other things. I am hoping that by creating this article now others will be able to add information to it. (Tenniskh89 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
ADDITION: If you would like to delete the article and wait for greater publicity/finalized casting then I understand and will wait until then to create the article. (Tenniskh89 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
Delete - fails WP:NFF, can't find anything reliable that would assert the notability of the topic, just some stuff on fansites and one local newspaper article . ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films as the project is not in production. Like Guest9999, I only found the passing mention of the project in development, but this is not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. No prejudice against recreation if it can be verifiably shown that production has commenced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. It's all just unverified speculation, basically. Lankiveil (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete. Any coverage is mostly from insane teeny-bopper blogs because Zac Efron is allegedly in this project. None the less, I can't find any reliable sources aside from these insane Zac Efron fans. Anywho, this is pure crystal ballery. It isn't in pre-production yet or in IMDb. Doc Strange (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as the foregoing have reasoned. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep per WP:SPORT, WP:BIO, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure). SeanMD80 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Egloff

NN baseball player, he's just a guy who happened to pitch for the Indians, wasn't even any good. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources to establish notability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Although WP:SPORT isn't policy, I agree with it that a person who has participated in Major League baseball, as well as a full season of AAA Baseball, is notable. In addition, he satisfies the criteria of athletes for WP:BIO: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league." Both the Major League and AAA Baseball are fully professional leagues. Redfarmer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Do a Newsbank search. You'll find at least a half-dozen full-length newspaper articles primarily about him. I cited a few in the Misplaced Pages entry. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Established consensus, if he's pitched in the majors, he's notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SPORT. Maxa megalon 2000 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, even as a non-American, I know that Major League Baseball is the top baseball league in the world, and players appearing in it are notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep, almost all major leaguers are notable. Article has been sourced to assert notability now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep per overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability for professional athletes who have played at the highest level of their sport, even if it was just six games as in this case. The sources added to the article only further establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as all major league baseball players are notable. 11kowrom 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
Keep notable. Quality of play does not warrant a deletion either. Rhino131 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

M. Antoine

Unverifiable, unsourced, appears to be a hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no references, no notability, clearly a hoax or vanity article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable, and some of the content in the "Relationships" section could be interpreted as a personal attack if there is a real person with this name out there. Lankiveil (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Speedy delete as a bizarre hoax. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep - KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kenzie MacKinnon

Non-notable politician, scant media coverage and didn't win any election, delete. Wooyi 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, a serial unsuccessful candidate, there appears to be nothing particularly remarkable about him. Lankiveil (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep He was considered a serious candidate for the leadership of a serious political party. Past consensus has been to keep leadership candidates for Canadian political parties who have representation in a legislative body. - Jord (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Further, he got 12% of the vote in a four-way race, to a delegated leadership convention, and was endorsed by a former Premier of Nova Scotia, the head of government in the jurisdiction he sought the leadership. - Jord (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Serious candidate for the leadership of a recognized party. CJCurrie (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Jord and CJCurrie. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep A serially unsuccessful candidate can still be notable. There are enough non-trivial mentions to write a good stub. –Pomte 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete – no third-party sources, fails WP:ORG. KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tufts Democrats

No independent coverage, and just another college political organization. Basically every research institute in America would have a Democratic and a Republican organization. If we are going to keep the article, we'd have Harvard Republicans, Yale Democrats, Georgetown Democrats, and so on. Delete. Wooyi 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per precedent and WP:ORG. Student clubs at a single school are almost never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ORG and Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, just another student political organisation. Lankiveil (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete per above, and no good sources - only two college sites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was DELETE and redirect to Wonder Girls. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim Yoo Bin

This page is for a non-notable member of the Korean group Wonder Girls. Although the group has been successful, Kim has done nothing as a single person, and the only thing newsworthy about her to date is the fact that she entered the group late, as a last-minute replacement before their first album. As such, there should be no reason why a Misplaced Pages page for her should exist, especially if this information can be integrated into the main group article. SKS2K6 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shorten and Merge for both Ahn So Hee and Kim Yoo Bin to Wonder_Girls#Members_Profiles for now. I recommend that the nom include Ahn So Hee to this nomination. ---Lenticel 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect and then let the editors of Wonder Girls do any merging they want later. The sourcing on this article is quite poor, so I don't even know if there's much worth merging, but deletion clearly isn't the right outcome here; if nothing else, her name is a potential search term. Agree 100% with Lenticel's comments on Ahn So Hee too. cab (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect, agree with nominatior, but probably should be redirected to Wonder Girls. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

The result was keep. Production began in April 2007, so it meets the threshold for WP:NFF; the three third-party articles in references, plus the ELs given in this discussion, seem sufficient to meet WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Heaven Project

Per WP:NFF, specifically: but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Just because one of the actors may be a notable star, doesn't make the production itself notable. -- ALLSTARecho 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, it passes WP:NFF, see here. ~~Or would you like to offer a complete sentence for a deletion rationale?~~ hateless 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I don't really see how this fails WP:NFF. You can view the trailer for this film here and here is at least one article where this film is mentioned. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Well known actors connected to the movie make it notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: And how many of them received significant awards or significant and reliable press coverage? Or have the box-office draw of someone like Tom Cruise or the critical acclaim of someone like Meryl Streep? — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The actors Paul Walker and Linda Cardellini are clearly notable having played leading roles in major films. Trying to compare their fame to two of the biggest movie stars ever is unreasonable (also not all notable actors win awards). And, yes, they have both had significant and reliable press coverage (look at the movies they have had major roles in!). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per above. A couple of pre-release headlines to further affirm the keep: Walker enters 'Heaven' and Mandeville's in 'Heaven'. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep seems to be notable, some sources from: AOL , the New York Times , Yahoo , MSN , Variety , BIFA , the BBC . ]
Keep Notable upcoming film, plenty of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice per nom. I just don't see any sufficiently notable sources about this forthcoming movie. The New York Times is just announcing it without any significant coverage. The Variety articles also essentially don't do much more than announce the movie, and IMDB or trailers don't count for notability per se. Same for other sources. It's not like the pre-release press coverage for The Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain, for example, which clearly were notable before release. I believe it violates WP:NFF per the nom quote of the guidelines. At least at this point in time. — Becksguy (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, since film has not been released, and no evidence has yet been presented in the article that the production itself is notable. In fact, so far, the article has no references at all. Cardamon (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the comments above that provide more than sufficient evidence of notability. It's a matter of referencing what we know is now notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no secondary sources that assert the notability of this film (what amounts to an announcement that it exists doesn't really confer notability). Lankiveil (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it does. Variety qualifies as a third-party, reliable source, and it has provided significant coverage of this film before its release, which is in line with the notability guidelines for future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As Becksguy pointed out above, the Variety articles essentially don't do much more than announce the movie. That's hardly notable. Just because it has a notable actor in it, doesn't make the production itself notable and so does not meet WP:NFF. ALLSTARecho 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I've just used the sources to indicate the background of the project -- that it originated in September 2005, experienced a delay, and began production in April 2007, not to mention the belated join-up by an actress. I think you underestimate coverage from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter -- there are many, many films that do not get significant coverage from them. It doesn't matter if it's an "announcement" -- the articles are significant in their coverage, not just passing mentions. This film isn't by any means going to be a blockbuster, but it's determined enough notability at this point to warrant inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to be considered notable a topic doesn't just have to have been mentioned by secondary sources, it has to have recieved "significant coverage" ]

WP:N: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. These articles do just that. The headlines are focused on the topic, and the content is focused on the topic. These really aren't passing mentions at all like the example at WP:N about the band Three Blind Mice in a Bill Clinton biography. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep based on satisfaction of WP:NFF. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Sources above from Andrew (above) satisfies requirements. Somebody want to stick those into the article for the time being? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on that now, actually. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No, actually the sources don't satisfy WP:NFF if you look at them carefully. Variety, although providing more than a passing mention, is essentially just a press release announcement, with no significant and no intellectually independent coverage in a trade publication. Essentially all it does is list, in prose form, the kind of data that IMDB lists: production company, screenwriters, cast, yadda, yadda. Not a reliable source in this case. Do any of the people involved have an Academy Award? Is the movie headed to Sundance, or Cannes? Is the director a famous auteur? Although notability isn't inherited. Any articles on the film in a serious magazine on film criticism? Have any mainstream journalistic or academic film critics discussed it? Note that the NYT mention is just a listing, nothing more, and doesn't count, and neither do the rest of the listings provided. It's just another Hollywood product until sufficiently reliable sources say it's notable. The article's subject lacks intrinsic notability at this time, and that can't be fixed with editing, otherwise I would be arguing to keep, as I have many times before (to the point of probably being considered an inclusionist by some). — Becksguy (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument has been that this film has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party published sources, namely Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I would caution against your attempt to "dissect" these sources. Because they are trade papers and only providing descriptive details with the film not yet out, they may sound like press release announcements, but they are not. Neither papers are studio-represented; they qualify as secondary sources. I don't believe your other suggestions (Sundance, Cannes, Award) are appropriate for the film in this stage since it is not released yet. I am not arguing to keep the article on the basis of the relatively notable cast members of Walker and Cardellini, nor the website listings, of which there can be many. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter hardly cover every film that's ever going to be made, so there's no reason to cast doubt on their coverage about The Heaven Project when they cannot procure an article about every project in the making. The coverage is relatively minimal, sure, but it's still enough. I've edited articles on upcoming films for some time, and while I wish I could reflect my experiences to you in a sentence or two, all I can do is impart the fact that many upcoming films that range in scale will lack unquestionable coverage in their early stages. As far as I'm concerned, this film article has crossed the threshold with its existing coverage, and while I can't guarantee it, more will likely follow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for a long and constructive response, Erik. I can see your point, but I still think the two trade publications are more press releases than articles about the film (although I now agree that they are third party). If they had discussed it in terms of something more than just unadorned production related facts, in other words, something significant, I would agree with you. Nine months before Brokeback Mountain was released, there was buzz about it's being a Oscar contender, for example. That's the kind of coverage that's needed to make an unreleased film notable (although not to the same degree obviously). And my comment about the Awards was not about the movie, it was about the people associated with the film. If Johnny Depp was one of the stars we wouldn't be having this discussion, but Walker and the others are not A-list stars, or household names, not yet anyway (I had to look him up). Also, if this had been a AfD about a "X in popular culture" article, those references would not be accepted. I know, after having gone through several very stressful AfDs defending those kinds of articles. Frankly, I'm surprised at myself for being on the opposite side of the debate table in this particular AfD, but intellectual honesty forces me to argue against what I see as intrinsic non-notability at this time, despite my preferences. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that part of the issue is that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter tend to be industry-focused, so they may impart details that don't seem very significant about the film to the majority of people. (Just take a look at their latest headlines -- they're not very interesting outside of certain major announcements that make some fans salivate.) I was actually looking at the existing citations and thinking, "They probably reported about the film because of the names of Walker and Cardellini." They've been the highlights for two of the articles, so while this is just an educated guess, I think that's why the film was mentioned at all. Articles at either trade paper tend to provide some coverage when it's either A) a notable director, B) a notable cast member, or C) a notable premise (such as being based on source material or franchise). If this film didn't have any of these, it wouldn't have gotten any coverage. From what I can tell, B qualifies with Walker and Cardellini being, not super-notable names but rather, some-notable names. While I'm just speculating here, it seems to show that the names do have some weight. Also, regarding the role switch at AFD, it's been interesting for me, too, since I recommend to delete more often than keep. Special circumstances, I suppose. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep due to the listed cites; they clearly qualify as third-party, even if coverage is as yet minimal. Liquidfinale 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yakum

No obvious claim to notability for this specific kibbutz and no sources indicating notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - A kibbutz that was founded before the state of Israel was in existence is notable in itself. This is also been the subject of secondary sources that were more than "passing mentions", like from the Jerusalem Post when Amram Mitzna choose this kibbutz to revive his candidacy for Labor Party leader (he eventually won) --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable for being formed pre-Israel as above. Just as notable as every other small village or town out there. Lankiveil (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep A well-written article on a notable kibbutz, above and beyond the overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability of well-defined places, as is this one. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David Shea

nn actor/model. Shea's acting credits according to his article and imdb consist of appearing as an extra in a made for TV movie, although he is apparently "best known" for a movie that hasn't been released yet and has no imdb listing. His sole modelling credit is appearing in a presumably nn calendar. I originally placed a PROD but it was removed. TM 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete No major acting parts to provide notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, if you're "best known" for being in a film that nobody has seen, isn't finished, and hasn't been released, then you probably haven't done anything all that notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kate Crossley

Non notable small time actress, in a bit part role, look as if somebody placed this just for the sake of it Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete No major parts to make her notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Almost certainly created in an attempt to support the case for keeping the Natasha Collins article. Apart from a role in a children's series which is alreay adequately covered in the show's own article, she's had a bit-part in a film, two one-episode roles in a popular drama and appeared in an insignificant five-minute short film. Not really enough. - 88.109.209.253 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not exactly true. However, I thought that ss Natasha Collins had an article, why not create one for Kate Crossley as well? But at the end of the day, both are really non-notable people, so even I would say delete this. Brochco (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete A definite candidate for deletion. Even less notable than Natasha Collins. Brett Leaford (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, only possible notability is the very weak connection to Natasha Collins. Other than that, just a garden variety bit-part actor. Pass the WP:BIO. Lankiveil (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete She is a Joe (or perhaps that should be Jo) Average and non-notable. Without the recent events surrounding Natasha Collins, she would probably never have had an article written about her.Egdirf (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedied as a repost of deleted material. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Networks

This is an article about a non-notable ISP written by the sales and marketing manager of the company using a role account. The first version of this article, over at Cedar networks, was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. ˉˉ╦╩ 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...of which this is a repost, albeit in abbreviated form (the wording of the sentences is basically identical, just some sections have been removed and replaced by an egregious "for more, see their website". As such, I've speedied it as a repost (G4). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jade Raymond

Delete Just no notability; article doesn't assert notability either ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 01:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Tentative keep the host of a nationally televised show seems to me to be notable enough. Skomorokh 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Association with a notable subject doesn't give something notability. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 03:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete unremarkable TV Presenter. Pump me up 10:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, can't see how she's any different to every other minor TV presenter out there. No awards or anything to indicate that she stands out from the crowd. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep, subject has been the subject of multiple non-trivial news pieces due to her work as a producer of Assassin's Creed (and how she is one of the few high-placed women in a male-dominated field). I'll try to add some references before the discussion ends. -- Merope 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: The mere fact that many people have felt it necessary to publicly accuse Raymond of being unimportant despite her role as developer, spokesperson for Ubisoft and pioneering public game industry figure suggests the opposite is true: Excellence and prominence, not lackluster acceptability, incite spirited scrutiny, and the gaming press has been full of that kind of scrutiny. (One example among many: Wired Magazine listed the backlash against Jade Raymond as one of "Game|Life's 10 Biggest Disappointments of 2007" .) As the Guardian UK reported, "A young woman becoming the face of a major project - the internet grappled with it, a misogynistic fringe group belittled it, but they were more than happy to write about it." However, as of January 2008, the population affected by Raymond's presence is reported to be larger than the "fringe" suggested by the Guardian, and it does not necessarily consist of young males, as has been suggested: According to The Financial Post, Raymond is relevant because the average gamer is 39 years old, and 42% of active gamers are women: her presence in the industry is said to speak to them, not young males who find Raymond superficially attractive. To be fair to that emerging demographic, the practical thing to do would be to put up an entry on Raymond but keep it free of simpering and slander, as mods/eds do with entries on people like Hillary Clinton and George Bush III. Elected politicians are included in Misplaced Pages whether or not members of the public consider them ineffective -- the responsibilities and achievement of winning an office guarantees their entries' relevance. The same is true here: Raymond helped to develop and spearhead a game with a major release. Even if Assassin's Creed had been a complete and utter failure, her role in the game's fate would have to be written about here. Besides, Misplaced Pages has entries on minor TV actors, junk foods, short-lived urban slang and text speak. None of these is particularly "notable" in the literal sense, but all are culturally noteworthy (which is perhaps what Misplaced Pages's use of notable sometimes means). Also: Notorious cases of defamation of character and verbal lynching (like the horrendous 2007 attacks on Raymond) are of particular relevance at this stage in the internet's development, as recent examples bear out (such as the case against Lori Drew after Megan Meier's suicide). I note that Megan Meier has an entry on Misplaced Pages (as she should) despite her having achieved far less "of note" than Raymond: the issue of cyberstalking is central to her entry and highly relevant culturally. It would also be relevant to Raymond's entry (and story) as well. -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just a heads up, that account seems to have been created solely to add to the article's talk page, and to add an entry here. Sockpuppetry? Fin ©™ 12:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - it looks like this editor's just enthusiastic about the subject. I'll leave a message on his/her talk page to take it easier. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be sockpuppetry? Lots of people only come here to to comment on one or two of the issues they're interested in. Being new doesn't mean that you can't have a good argument, either, and those are what we're obstensibly here to provide; I've seen anons blow veterans out of the water every now and then. --Kiz o r 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - To the bogus accusation of "sock-puppetry," I answer: Since when is a false and unverifiable accusation as to intent validated by negative spin on another user's posting frequency? As to the "purpose" of my account: I have written for academic presses for twenty years, have nothing to do with Raymond or Ubisoft personally, and have written and edited entries on Misplaced Pages before -- but if I did have a user name, it has long since been forgotten (reference to entries available to mods via PM or my email address, which is verified). In the interests of quid pro quo, Falcon9x5, what are your unstated motives for launching character attacks on a stranger posting a reasonable response (with references) on a discussion page for an online encyclopedia? Besides which, everyone who writes for Misplaced Pages began with one entry -- why are you not accusing them of "sock-puppetry" as well? -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As I've stated on your talk page, sepium, I don't think "sockpuppetry?" can be classed as a character attack, I was making other editors aware of my concerns. My motive for bringing up your contributions was that it's unusual to see a contributor editing around a single subject (and quite a narrow one at that), the fact that there's been large amounts of vandalism on Jade Raymond's page only heightened my concern. Anyway, it was a mistake and I apologise. Thanks! Fin ©™ 13:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

- - I'll be honest: I merely skimmed over your comment, Sepium, but most of it seemed to be along the lines of merely being associated with notable subjects, which does not give something notability; I'm related to Vikings' Adrian Peterson, who is pretty notable, especially right now, but that doesn't allow me to have my own article, does it. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Until you actually read my comment, you won't be able to summarize it. Development of a high-profile game, spokesperson for it and for the company that made it, singular target of sexual harassment in the game community and reported as such in the international press (see above) -- all of that might not make the subject important to every individual, but it does make the subject at least as culturally relevant as many others on Misplaced Pages. The entry should also address the very controversy that has many gamers protesting Raymond's relevance here and elsewhere -- if it's newsworthy enough to be covered in the press for two years (latest article I've seen: Financial Post, January 8), then it's in a different class of relevance than one's simply being a sports figure's brother (no disrespect intended). -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Hmm, fair enough. If what you say is true and if the sources will actually be added to the article, then maybe it does need to exist. Crap, there are enough "Keep" votes up that it's probably going to be kept anyway. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep, Raymond is more notable in her role as producer on Assassin's Creed than as a tv presenter. Kotaku references her every now and again. But I'm indifferent really. Fin ©™ 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Notable person within video gaming because of her role in Assassin's Creed and the television show. Sources exist on both. User:Krator (t c) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notable as nationally broadcast TV host and for her work with the video game. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Article as it is now does not verifiably assert Raymond's notability. - 68.79.5.64 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keywords "as it is now". See WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - she's getting quite a bit of press, as evidenced by a quick Google News search: the first article to come up is a profile in the Financial Post specifically discussing her success in the industry. Here's an interview from 2004 in a German publication. Others discuss the game, her role in the game, and so on. It appears to me there's enough to provide a good basis for a solid article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep She is well know. Her work in Assassin Creed shows it all. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep It needs more references, but it can certainly be saved. ― LADY GALAXY 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep.--Him and a dog 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a vote. Please cite a reason. ♣ Bishop Tutu ♣ 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Article as it stands is insufficient but I think this discussion has raised the fact that there's enough out there to justify keeping the article and expanding it. --Yamla (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep One of little female video game producers sounds like reason enough to me. I would mark the article as a stub, though. --Mistermartin75 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't like to delete articles. --Damifb (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was delete. Archtransit (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tourparty

Advertising for non-notable camp provider Montco (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Should add conflict of interest concerns as User:Mdarcy may be Matthew D'arcy, listd as a director of the company.Montco (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, would seem to be a non-notable camp that fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete - Opening line explains it all really. All of the sources are conflict of interest, no apparent assertion of notability and fails per Lankiveil. Rudget . 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
delete the spam - unless there are some refs to rewrite the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was VOID Bad Faith Nom by vandal-SPA. JERRY _contribs 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Diefenbaker

small reasonably unknown person with little base. No need for article Latenightsgalor (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was started by a blatant "vandalism only account". The deletion subject is a former Prime Minister of Canada... hardly non-notable. 156.34.210.254 (talk)