Knowledge (XXG)

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. Waggers (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been subject to numerous reversions by anonymous users, to determine whether it deserves to be an article in its own right, or a redirect to CrossCountry. In an attempt to end this warring, I have decided to nominate it, so that a formal discussion can take place. If the result is delete, the redirect can then be re-applied. As this is to prevent warring, my own stance is strictly neutral.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since a consensus discussion has already taken place (on this and the related Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line), which has decided that these two entities do not actually exist, I move for a speedy close as redirect. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To repeat the discussion at WT:RAIL (now archived), a railway line article should be about a physical stretch of track. This is not the case here: instead, this article is about a train service which uses various lines to get between Cardiff and Nottingham. While a redirect to CrossCountry, the name of the company which operates the service, might be a reasonable compromise, it seems a little odd. So I suggest deleting this article. Any other "line" articles which are really about services should meet the same fate in due course, but that's a matter for WT:RAIL first, rather than AfD. --RFBailey (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I vote speedy merge - not just redirect, as the Cross Country route page does not have any info about this section of line. 81.171.170.250 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the article about CrossCountry (the train operator) or Cross Country Route (about the Bristol-Birmingham-Derby line)? --RFBailey (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The service is mentioned near the top of CrossCountry. The physical tracks are: South Wales Main Line, Gloucester to Newport Line, Cross Country Route and Midland Main Line (from west to east). Those cover the infrastructural aspects of the journey. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as one of the protagonists in this dispute is currently blocked, I suggest that it would be only fair not to make any speedy decision, but to allow this user to make a comment when their block is lifted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  As posted elsewhere, said "protagonist in this dispute" is a known problem user (Special:Contributions/128.240.229.65 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.66 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.67 Special:Contributions/128.240.229.68, and associated talk pages), so I somewhat object to this being described as a bona fide edit war. I should note here that while the IP addresses are shared, it is clear that the problem contributions were all clearly by one person. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• A redirect to CrossCountry sounds good to me. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It now reads that it is a rail route, rather than a line. Therefore I see no reason for deletion but perhaps a rename to Cardiff Central to Nottingham route. 128.240.229.65 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Creator: I don't see why it should be deleted becuase it's been changed to read a route/service not a line, which it is. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As previously mentioned, the line does not exist; it is simply a route operated along several real lines, and as such there is little that can be said about it that would not be better placed in the operator’s article. David Arthur (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: User:Welshleprechaun has now moved the article to Cardiff Central to Nottingham Route. --RFBailey (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In fact, I think a page should be made for all CrossCountry routes rather than making the CrossCountry page too long. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bad idea for various reasons. First, the general Knowledge (XXG) practice is to split content from articles once they grow too large, not to pre-empt this. The CrossCountry article certainly hasn't grown too large yet. Second, where would you stop? Having pages for occasional services that run once a day, or (worse) once a week in summer? What about other operators--why just this one? This is a slippery slope which, quite frankly, I don't want to see us go down. --RFBailey (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, such a practice would split information away from where people are likely to look for it, and result in needless duplication — already, much of the disputed article’s content is a redundant summary of the geography and transport links of Wales and the Midlands. David Arthur (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - services change more often than lines and if we went down this route, there would be too much unnecessary duplication. Merge it into CrossCountry. WelshBloke (talk) 10:14, 11 December 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. — Scientizzle 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

E3 Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be more of a POV advertisement than an article Mcwatson (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe rename as Evangecube and trim drastically? Surprisingly, the 3x3 inch doodad E3 sells gets a lot of Ghits, so it may possibly be notable enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. No prejudice against a new page on Evangecube, however. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral after stubification, !vote may change again after further expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Replaced with a stub. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  However, the stub as it stands now does not assert notability. Pagrashtak 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Pagrashtak is correct. Too stubified. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• An editor (with an apparent conflict of interest) has made some changes, but the article is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Perhaps someone else from WikiProject Christianity might now lend a hand. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• I did some minor cleanup, but the article reads like an advertisement and uses second-person. It still doesn't assert notability. Pagrashtak 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Cleaned the second-person language. Pagrashtak 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There doesn't look to be anything here that would help to create an encyclopedic article. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the Evangacube which might well be notable but this still reads like a company press release. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything noteable or noteworthy about this organisation that sets them apart from literally millions of others dong similar things for every religion. Plus it reads like it was written by an insider. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 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. Mr.Z-man 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Aerospace Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Doom game articles. As such, and this is duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources on page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The UAC is a very important plot element in the Doom games. I say keep, but we do need to cite some sources. - XX55XX (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, because otherwise it is important to the plot of Doom but not notable enough to have its own article per WP:FICTION and WP:RS. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable game element Mbisanz (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep Judging only by the WP articles, since i don't know the game, it is a key actor in the plot--the villainous megacorporation whose activities give rise to the basic action. DGG (talk) 02:53, 14 December 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, Consensus appears to be that sources used in this debate and in article establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article went through an AfD and was deleted once before. Its reincarnation still seems to lack 3rd-party sourced notability. It is my understanding that existence in not sufficient to establish notability for a film. Its claimed notability, fictionalized snuff films, strikes me as more of a negative than a +: a desperate attention-getting strategy that has not yet worked. At present, no one is served by this entry but the film-maker. Hence I nominate for its second deletion. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The prior AFD can be found at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Poughkeepsie Tapes and was closed as "delete" on 8 Aug 2006. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The film seems to exist, though it has never gone into general release. The snuff aspect is apparently a fiction. According to cinematical.com, the film was shown once at least once at a film festival. There is a possibility of general release in 2008, but since the whole operation seems a bit marginal, WP:CRYSTAL surely applies to this film's future career. I believe it doesn't meet the notability requirements of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films). EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I edited the article to remove speculation about a general release in 2008. The link used as a reference was non-working. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I saw The Mist over the weekend at the theaters and they had a preview for this movie, so it is an actual film that appears to have theatrical notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the director is going on to do other things with established stars (Dania Ramirez, Jay Hernandez). Does http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tixSYS/2007/filmguide/eventnote.php?EventNumber=4542 count as a reliable source? Here, a NY Times source. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the film is advertised as being real, so having an article that refutes the videotape authenticity is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you explain what you mean by "refutes the videotape authenticity"? --Pleasantville (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The film is being presented as a documentary, but it's really a sham documentary like The Blair Witch Project. We need a reliable source which makes it clear that this is fiction. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• So far, none of the "keep" opinions have demonstrated that this film meets any of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The director's other work, for example, is irrelevant to this discussion because notability is not inherited. The film festival linking demonstrates existence as does the NY Times reprint of their press release but no one here has questioned the existence of the film. Not everything that is real gets covered in the encyclopedia. If this is the best evidence available, I am leaning toward a delete opinion. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• The film is not yet widely distributed and therefore has not yet received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. However, there is a teaser trailer indicating that it will have a wide release via MGM (which is, as noted, being shown before 'The Mist' in theatres). Common sense dictates that it will almost certainly have full length reviews in the future when it is widely distributed. Deleting it is definitely justifiable at this point in time, but I think keeping a rewritten article with a simple description of the plot would be suitable since it will definitely meet the notability requirements described above in the near future. Of course, it would also be nice to have some sources.70.171.125.215 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ample sources, so I added a few. Marginal Notability, but sufficient for inclusion, particularly since it was shown at a major film festival. Needs expansion, not deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are the same sources mentioned before. They demonstrate existence, not notability. Remember that plot summaries and other directory-listing materials come from the movie producers and fail the independence requirement of sourcing. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk)

The NYT does not publish every PR it receives and Tribecca does not show every film submitted. I thiink this shows the film has received sufficient notice for inclusion. Dhaluza (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The film was advertised with 'Awake' on November 30th. Target release is noted on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010271/">IMDB</a> as February 8th, 2008. Film is ficitionalized, ala 'Blair Witch Project'.
• Keep Just watched it, getting wide release Nick Catalano _contrib 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Every new film deserves an article. We should just be careful what information is put on (saying that it's real and stuff).- JustPhil 15:45, 10 December 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 Note that this keep is not to be construed as an endorsement of the name "Gageo Reef". JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I initially tagged the article for notability on November 19th, 2007 and informed the editors of the page of my tagging. I asked them to add more information to pass the guidelines for notability. After two weeks, nothing on the page changed, so I proposed deletion on December 3, 2007 and notified the founding editor. That same day DGC deleted the proposed deletion template saying that the article was an adequate stub. I disagree. As I stated in my proposed deletion, there is nothing in the article that shows any notability. As the article states, it is an uninhabited, submerged rock off the coast of South Korea. This is the only significant fact given. It is also said to have been discovered by the Hyuga without reference, but nothing on the Hyuga page mentions the reef or its importance. I question whether that fact is even true. After a thorough internet search, I could find no page to validate its notability or even give any information about the reef. Seeing that with that amount of work, I could still not verify notability and that the original authors seem to not care enough, I believe this article should be deleted. --17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Jdcaust (talk)

• Keep. Geographical features are notable and this one also appears to be a verifiable navigation hazard. A Google and Google News search shows hits in Korean and Chinese. A Korean news article ( translated by Babelfish) apparently confirms the 1927 find (by collision). WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason for deletion and two weeks is a lightning fast timetable for cleanups around here. I suggest giving this article a chance. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This has the feel to me of one of those international border/sphere of influence disputes. I see that an earlier version of the article referred the reef under the name Rixiang. Is there a larger context here of which we should be aware? Xymmax (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like case of dueling articles and redirects. The reef is in disputed waters and the name of the reef is also disputed. Before it was redirected in November, Rixiang Reef was Chinese rock, also called Gageo Reef, in disputed waters.. The S. Koreans want it called Gageo Reef. The Chinese call it Rixiang Reef. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you. That makes sense. I think we should keep the article, although it seems like its ability to grow may be limited. If I can find sourcing for the competing ownership claims, I'll add that information as well. Xymmax (talk) 21:26, 5 December 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. Waggers (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

North Shore Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page makes no claim to notability of this mall. No sources could be found, not even an official website (which is surprising for a mall of this size). Ten Pound Hammer • 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep:This is a mall of about 1,000,000 square feet with 4 major anchor tenants. If it doesn't pass the notability test, then I submit that about 75% of the malls that have articles on Knowledge (XXG), listed at List of shopping malls in the United States also would not pass the notability test. The fact that the article is a 2 sentence crappy stub does not automatically make the subject un-notable. How about writing a better article instead? -Fish Man (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to write a better article, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. And so what if other super regional malls have pages?" Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless referenced with evidence of importance by close of debate. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I've added some information and more importantly, some references for the basic facts about the mall. While still a stub, now that it is referenced, I think it can stand on its own better until a user with more information can flesh it out further. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The TripInfo site doesn't look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific on your concerns of reliability? If you review this link, it seems to indicate that the data is reviewed for accuracy and that a membership fee is required for a listing. Given the subscription fee, I think its safe to assume that a mall owner/manager would submit accurate data about their facility. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It means that it is a primary source, not a secondary source which is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - having investigated this place, I cannot recall ever having found a web of ownerships more complex than this one! (see the goofy Ref. I added to the Article)(ahem they may be goofy ... but they satisfy WP:RS). I for one, would like to see where this trail ends before the Article is decided notable or not, as that complexity alone may proove the Mall notable. Exit2DOS2000 06:06, 13 December 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. This closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the consensus among other users that opening a new AfD the same day that the previous one closed is a little too soon. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure endorsed. Seriously, the world will not end tomorrow. Give it a few days before nominating again. Or just redirect it and see if anyone cares.—Random832 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo in pop culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This survived a previous deletion discussion by deleting a long list of trivia. What remains is an almost exact duplication of the Tokyo in popular media section from the article Tokyo. This fork now exists only to have a new IPC list appended. I have merged the one new sentence back into the Tokyo article for consideration by editors there. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do I understand correctly that the prior Afd ended today? Could you elaborate further as to why a second Afd is required at this time? Xymmax (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I haven't heard of a justification for this highly unusual nomination. Xymmax (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I concur. What's the point? If content has been merged back, we probably don't want to delete this article anyway per GFDL concerns. Anyway, this whole request is based on how I removed the list of mentions, which is NOT an action I took as the closer of the previous debate, but rather as an ordinary editor. Perhaps I should have just redirected the page instead, and I would have had I realized that the header text was already present at Tokyo. Edg - just withdraw this and redirect the page. It's too soon to have an actual debate. Mangojuice 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep seeing the previous AfD was just deleted, no need to relist so soon. Could this be taken to WP:DRV? Ten Pound Hammer • 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Having just voted to delete this page in the last 24 hours, and having seen it survive, I now vote keep, not because the page deserves it (it still should go) but rather because it is out of process to nominate it again.--CastAStone| 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This was opened an hour and 3 minutes after an AfD that had been open for 9 days closed. Consensus can change...but I doubt it can in one hour. --Smashville 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural Speedy Keep too soon after last AfD... (way waaaaay too soon ) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep for the same reasons as everyone else. ···日本穣 01:47, 6 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Disco Aroma by Decibel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band has no article, album has no verifiable notability, fails WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Band doesn't seem to be notable, so neither are their albums. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All seems a part to justify the creation of Lampara which seems to have been AfD'd and deleted many times over.--Pmedema (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:00, 6 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On to Inverno Samba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, band doesn't even have a page, can't meet WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Band doesn't seem notable, so neither are their albums. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All seems a part to justify the creation of Lampara which seems to have been AfD'd and deleted many times over.--Pmedema (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 16:09, 10 December 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Game 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded, prod removed by creator. 99% sure this is a hoax, google gives nothing back about a computer game, and none of the outlandish commests are backed up by the sources. And even if it does exist, it's also blatant spam (kind of wish I tried tagging it as such before coming here...). UsaSatsui (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as evident hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original prodder. It's a blatant hoax, and could even be speedied as G3. The creator has tried to lend some credibility by replacing the non-existent website references with real websites (albeit just the front pages of Nintendo and Sony), but it's still transparently false. ~Matticus _C 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's a hoax. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. It is WP:BOLLOCKS. Hammer1980· 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Gag entry. Padillah (talk) 19:46, 5 December 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 as had already been speedy deleted by DJ Clayworth. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The unreferenced article seems promotional. Not clear that he satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.liberal.org.au/locallib/scottmcconnel/ -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 10 December 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. — Scientizzle 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ross Daniels (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, major party candidate for a national legislature. Corvus cornix_talk 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Standard Knowledge (XXG) practice for unelected major party candidates in federal elections is to merge them into an omnibus list in the Labor Party candidates, 2007 Australian federal election format. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Citations are to political organisations, rather than reportage by neutral media. The article is also a bit of a puff piece. Andjam (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. Nevermind unsuccessful ballot he was the Chairperson of Amnesty International's International Executive Committee from 1993 to 1997. Victuallers (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not per above, but because he was an officer of Amnesty International and appeared on national media for them. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 14 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BlackStar by Inverno Samba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, can't meet WP:MUSIC currently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All seems a part to justify the creation of Lampara which seems to have been AfD'd and deleted many times over.--Pmedema (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:03, 5 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Endless Sum of an Ancient Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of verifiable notability, not exactly WP:MUSIC-worthy The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All seems a part to justify the creation of Lampara which seems to have been AfD'd and deleted many times over.--Pmedema (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:04, 5 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I Sold Your Soul... Happy? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Musician doesn't have a page, so evidently not a notable album. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All seems a part to justify the creation of Lampara which seems to have been AfD'd and deleted many times over.--Pmedema (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 7 December 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 as a copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Sole claim to notability is being an unsuccessful election candidate. Dlw22 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

delete Not very notable and there are a number of other Sue Page's out there that are all sort of notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.nrudrh.edu.au/index.php?pageid=2233&siteid=246 Whpq (talk) 17:39, 10 December 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. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

List of black metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no need for this list when Category:Black metal musical groups and it's many nationality-associated subcats exist. Funeral 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No beneficial information beyond what a category can provide. -Verdatum (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Needless duplication of cat. - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We Americans can be very race-conscious, but sometimes we take it too far.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you serious? I think you need to read black metal. Kameejl 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think lists are useful and are capable of more than categories. This list could be worked with even more, but just because categories are easier to maintain and what not, that doesn't make them better. Plus if a regular person if looking for lists of x-type bands, they would not only find the lists more appealing than categories, but would probably find the list before they found the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navnløs (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Basically the same reply I gave on the doom metal AfD: Not necessarily, only 6 articles link to the list, whereas there are hundreds of band pages with the cat. Funeral 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hammer1980· 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and more informative listing. A list offers so much more options than a simple category could ever provide. While a category is good simply for listing them, list articles go several steps further and offer different ways they can be listed. Some examples are on the very page that was afd'd and a few on some other lists, they are: adding their location by flag, if they are/were one of the original bands of the genre they will be indicated, if they played the style early, mid or later on, a list of albums by the bands that are within the genre and also not in the genre but has made a notable release of the genre and also bands that at some point in time played the style. --CircafuciX (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Category:Dutch black metal musical groups, Category:French black metal musical groups, Category:Swiss black metal musical groups - That's how I tell what a band's location is. Not a misleading picture of a flag. Lists are worthless and redundant no matter how pretty you make them look. Funeral 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Categories are not a substitute for lists per se. Navigation in categories such as this one is not intuitive as bands are divided by country. No overview is possible using this category system. The system now used is disabling other kinds of categorization f.e. including subgenres (like done on the gothic metal band list). Something possible in article lists. Lists are the logical result of genre articles as they are an extension of "key artist" sections. It's better to have a separate list because there are too many notable bands to be in the genre article. Articles are more flexible and capable of more than categories. Flags/country names will give the reader an immediate visual indication of different metal scenes. Some bands change their genre over time so it can be useful to have extra information like "first album" or "early" next to a band name. The list must however contain sources so it needs some work. Categories are not a substitute for lists. Kameejl 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  Question/Comment You said, "The system now used is disabling other kinds of categorization f.e. including subgenres (like done on the gothic metal band list). Something possible in article lists." Forgive me but I don't understand this sentence at all. Could you please clarify? Moreover, isn't Black metal in itself a subgenre? Finally, if a user is interested in learning about the "different metal scenes", would that not be better reflected by discussing the different metal scenes in the main black metal article? To me, at least, that sounds a good deal easier than performing shape recognition on the various flag images to mentally calculate the distrobution of artists by nation.-Verdatum (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete content covered perfectly well by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kameejl. ~ | twsx | _cont | 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-use a category. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Helpful list. I agree with the above "Keep" requests. If you delete this list, there are many other lists of other genres out there too.Metal Head (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete 208.38.80.45 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep From what I've heard, most Knowledge (XXG) readers tend to find these list articles more user-friendly than categories i.e. many readers are more likely to check these lists than categories. All this list need is sources and it's fine.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Lists can be more useful than categories. Bloodredchaos (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: If you say that the List of black metal bands is not going to be developed further, then I would have said delete. As of now, the category is much better than the list; its concise, bands are grouped into country-wise subcategories. But, the category will stay that way. On the other hand, the list can be developed along the lines of some of these lists Category:Lists. They can convey band specific information, which I doubt can be integrated into a category. Of course work needs to be done; but also, there are no featured categories, right? Welt 03:08, 9 December 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. Davewild (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Token Liberal candidate in a very safe Labor seat. Dlw22 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Political candidates are not necessarily notable just for being a candidate. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above, and these articles are in proliferation just at the moment. Completely non-notable. Frickeg (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do NOT Delete.This is Rose Torossian. I am happy to provide further evidence to support my biographical information so that it may remain on wikipedia. Knowledge (XXG) states that a politician is the following:

"...people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, right of inheritance (see also: divine right) or other means." Knowledge (XXG).

I seeked the position of a politician by means of an election.

Bold textConsidered a politicianBold text
"A person who is active in party politics.

Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor can be termed a politician. For example, a worker participating in office politics is a politician, but only so far as the operations of his or her workplace are concerned." Knowledge (XXG)

I am currently active in party politics and I influenced a group of opinions in my favour when I was a Liberal Candidate for Fowler. Rose Torossian 11:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hi Rose. I've shifted your comment down the page to reflect the order of the comments made here. I simply point out that being involved in politics and being a political candidate doesn't make a person sufficiently notable. I refer you to WP:BIO:

• Politicians:
  • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  • Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

Dlw22 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's no doubt she's a politician, but politicians aren't necessarily notable. I would also like to point out that, should she win the election or become notable in some other way (hopefully not through election fraud), the article can be recreated. It's not "now or never". --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ 00:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - for notability reasons and specifically the section of WP:BIO cited above. The article subject has asserted notability but there is not sufficient here to meet the guideline. Being an unsuccessful election candidate is not of itself enough to justify a Knowledge (XXG) article. Nor is claiming to have received the the least worst swing against her at the election, which is grasping at straws as well as being demonstrably false (for example, the Liberal candidates for the nearby seats of Reid, Bennelong, Grayndler and Macquarie all had smaller swings agaisnt them than Torossian). Euryalus (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Also, unverified claims ('Rose had campaigned very hard'?) make the article seem POV. Auroranorth (!) 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I suggest that any very recent sources which come to light are really about an event rather than a person. As such there is nothing here which meets WP:N or WP:BLP or WP:BIO. Statements like She also received the best result in all of western sydney (here I was thinking, being elected would be the best possible result for a politician) don't seem very NPOV so if the article is kept it needs to be stripped back to a stub mentioning all the current sources.Garrie 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete The fact that I'm getting this much attention is a demonstration of how my candidacy in the Federal Election has made me renowned! Rose Torossian 12:00 11 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 10:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ...I think this is the first time someone has tried to use their AFD discussion as evidence of notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, Rose. │_here

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 --JForget 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

No context, no notability, no verifiability, prod removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete - I'm looking at this article and I'm thinking to myself 'Huh!? Don't know if this is a bio, a song or a description of a way of life! --Pmedema (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks to be original research about some sort of made up mysticism. Wickethewok (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's a musical composition. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE (in addition to lacking enough context—in spite of the article's length—to impart to the reader it's about). Appears to be connected to (the oft-deleted) Adrian Boyd/Adrian Voyd/Sex Ant Toys/Lampara/Lampara (Music Project). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as rambling nonsense. Can not be fixed or cleaned up. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax. I also suggest a speedy. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:04, 7 December 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. John254 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Superseded by Category:Chinese swords, lacks any information about the weapons mentioned that would be useful in a list. Burzmali (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons above:

Japanese swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep The category which supposedly supersedes it, doesn't seem to work. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Try again, I had a typo in the name. Burzmali (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is supposed to be a quick reference for various sword types, but both articles could be renamed as 'List of Chinese swords' and 'List of Japanese swords' if that is better. Aldis90 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • They already were, that's the problem I have with these articles. Burzmali (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lists can provide organization and information that categories can't. Though these lists don't yet, the subjects seems apt for the additional organization and information that a list-like article can provide. Keep and improve. Dekkappai (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Chinese Swords and List of Japanese Shorts ViperSnake151 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Katana for Japanese swords. "Katana" (or Nihonto) is the Japanese name of Japanese swords, and the article Katana is already a fairly extensive article. Chinese swords may be mede a DAB page with Dao (sword) and Jian for the same reason as Katana/Japanese swords. --Saintjust (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep without redirect or rename for Chinese swords, no opinion on the Japanese swords article. I have added some info from a ref on Chinese swords, and I think that the subject is worthy of a full article. The list-like elements can be moved to a separate list article, if need be.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The page contains at least minimal information on the history of swords in China. This is exactly the kind of article that should be left to see if it grows, or left as a perfectly OK stub. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The Chinese swords article is perfectly fine. The Japanese swords article should be moved to Japanese sword (singular form) and turned into a disambiguation page. Japanese sword is currently a redirect to Katana, but there are multiple types of Japanese swords, enough to warrant it being a disambiguation page. ···日本穣 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No AfD criteria seem to have been mentioned, or which are even applicable here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename the Chinese swords page, hey, if the Japanese swords got to be named as nihonto, so does the Chinese swords be named as dao or do. Merge the Japanese swords page to Katana, and Move it to Nihonto for classification purposes. Nihonto is a better overall word. MythSearcher 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Katana is only one of many kinds of Japanese swords, so merging Japanese swords there would be less effective. Nihonto would be better redirected to Japanese swords, with Japanese swords made into a disambig page to point to all the different types of Japanese sword articles (including Katana). ···日本穣 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Katana is not "only one of many kinds" of Japanese swords. Katana is the primary kind of nihonto. The others such as wakizashi are only the shorter variants of nihonto, and were usually used together with Katana as an auxiliary sword. They all share pretty much the same origin and history. It's not like different groups of swordsmiths from different eras came up with various kinds of Japanese swords. --Saintjust (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Look, I'm not going to argue with you as you've already wasted my time elsewhere. I don't care if they share a similar history and/or origin. Go look at Japanese swords. See all those articles? Obviously there are enough different kinds of Japanese swords to have a whole slew of different articles. That is why I'm strongly suggesting Japanese swords be turned into a disambig page. That would even work with Farix's suggestion below. ···日本穣 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Those are all kinds of katana/nihonto. Katana/nihonto is a category above them. Putting katana and Dotanuki (for example) together in the same category is like putting Sedan and Honda Civic in the same category "cars" (when "Sedans" should be a subcategory that includes the article Civic).
          Besides, there aren't separate articles for katana and nihonto. "Katana" has been the general article on Japanese swords that describes the common origin, history, and classification of Japanese swords. On Japanese Knowledge (XXG) also, Japanese katana is described in the article nihonto because there is no merit in making an independent article for each. While it's true that strictly speaking katana only refers to the longer variants of nihonto, the words katana and nihonto are often used synonymously in the general discourse because katana is the primary kind of nihonto and it's the most widely recognized name. (Fewer people know terms like "wakizashi," while the recognition of the word "katana" is close to universal.) --Saintjust (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and use WP:SUMMARY style to give brief descriptions of each type of sword or weapon. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some people thing there'sa rule that a category makes a list unnecessary, or justifies deletion of one. They are just plain wrong--the policy says the opposite, that both have their own purposes,and are permitted to both exist. DGG (talk) 10:26, 8 December 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. Mr.Z-man 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:BK: this is an article on two books, published as the first two volumes of a series. Notability is not established, all independent sources we could find are three reviews in online zines or websites. This is a borderline case, and I would vote weak delete, or alternatively redirect to Michael Moynihan (journalist) (the editor) pending the establishment of notability. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability seems to be implied by the fact that many of the contributors have their own bio articles. Also, a cursory glance at the talk page and the history shows extensive edit-warring very recently, and I don't think retaliatory deletion is an acceptable means to solve content disputes (if that is what's happening). - WeniWidiWiki (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • this has nothing to do with "retaliation". The disputes have brought to light that there are no "reliable sources" that could be cited on this topic. How are we going to write an article about something that hasn't been talked about by anyone? WP:BK asks that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This is clearly not the case here. "the fact that many of the contributors have their own bio articles" means that we can just list the thing in the "publications" sections of the relevant articles, it is not a criterion of WP:BK at all. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of notable people involved who have extensive Knowledge (XXG) articles, wide distribution (amazon.com as an example) and the mouthpiece of Radical Traditionalism. Request for deletion seems retaliatory, to be honest. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's where the problem started. Tyr is very much "the mouthpiece of 'Radical Traditionalism'": This means that 'Radical Traditionalism' is a concept entirely restricted to the pages of this publication and has no notability whatsoever. Which became apparent as soon as its characterization came under dispute: having zero notability, it is impossible to write an npov account "citing reliable sources" (there being none). dab (𒁳) 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Looking over the article, it seems to me to have some outside sources. I would like to see more sourcing on the earlier sections of the article, but as these seem to largely be statements from the journal or editors themselves, I don't think sourcing statements of self-definition from the journal itself is particularly controversial. There are certainly notable contributors. In terms of WP notability, I would say the low number of issues combined with the high profile of the contributors and the very high page count for a journal makes it more analagous to a pretty sizable anthology (book). We do not have a WP article on every anthology published. However, 718 pages by these particular contributors seems notable to me, particularly in a field where there aren't yet many publications. I don't have personal knowledge of how influential this journal was, but I would tend to assume it had an impact, and will continue to if they produce more issues. What troubles me about this AfD is that it is emerging from an edit war and content dispute. It doesn't look good when someone edit wars for a particular perspective in an article, and then nominates the article for deletion when consensus doesn't go their way. On that fact alone, I'd say this is a WP:POINT nomination. Combine that with the probability that the journal is notable in the field, and I'd say this is a keep. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pseudo-journal, 2 annual volumes, with no reliable sources for notability at all besides a local newspaper. The article is just the table of contents. Not even the minimum requirements for a journal. Looking at World Cat, its owned by two libraries only. LC and one other (the actual ISSN is 1538-9413, but the people writing the article neither knew or cared. Unknown publisher. Not indexed anywhere. an attempt to use WP to gain notability for an non-notable publication. A purported journal in two libraries only is not notable. Essentially vanity publishing. amazon.com will distribute anything, even self-published, if you pay them their 65%. There's no possibility that this journal is notable in any field, or some subscriptions would have actually been sold to some libraries. The relationship to "radical traditionalism" is a classic walled garden. Each one is notable in context only of each other. Might be time to look at the true notability of some of the authors. , DGG (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some swapping around to where more of the notable figures are in the introduction now, if that helps at all. I think the journal is mainly only relevant in Germanic neopaganism, which is what it largely involves so I added a bit about that. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons stated by DGG. There are three sources cited in the article, aside from the journal itself, only one of those sources meets the requirements for a reliable source. I agree that the walled garden of "radical traditionalism" needs some examination--there might be a lot of notability problems here. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 9 December 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 as per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Completing unfinished nom by User:Rtphokie. For some reason, Twinkle didn't finish the process; Twinkle has been acting very odd today. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. What is the nominator's rationale? Besides, fourth is just barely out of notablity distance. Are there any other claims to fame?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep International athlete who has competed at the World Championships. . No reason given to delete this article. Catchpole (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article clearly states that she's an international athlete representing Ukraine and came fourth in the recent World Championships, a competition second only to the Olympics in athletics importance. Of course she's notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards. She's also European U23 champion in the event. There's no reason given to delete it as Catchpole points out, so why is this even up for debate? I note that the 'nominator' created an article on Dr. Davis (coach), a former head coach of the Virginia Tech college football program during the 1900 season - which is now also up for AfD. It seems strange that he believes Karsak to be the lesser of the two in terms of Athletic achievement. Nick mallory (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Actually it was the European Championship, but coming fourth there is still way over the bar for notability for athletes as described in WP:BIO: "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notability enough for me. Sting_au Talk 12:46, 8 December 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. Davewild (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin United Nations Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university club, no different to similar groups at universities and colleges all over th world. Emeraude (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, per nominator. jareha 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:56, 6 December 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 --JForget 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resistance: Fall of Man weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of fictional weapons. Knowledge (XXG) is not a game guide. Pagrashtak 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Exactly as nom specifies. Fin©™ 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#INFO User:Krator (t c) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nom really says it all. A quick read confirmed that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Hammer1980· 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and above. WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#GUIDE definitely apply. Sephiroth BCR 06:50, 8 December 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 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trans Love Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no reliable sources (only sources listed are a webzine, band's website, and a myspace account) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The article's subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, and while the reported interview on "MuchMusic" perhaps had the potential to meet the first criterion, a search of the website fails to return any results. Further, though, there is a lack of the "multiple" outside sources of note required by the criterion. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per CSD A7. Non notable band.Hammer1980· 19:30, 5 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fictional weapon that does not satisfy Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction). Content is too detailed and game guide-ish for merging. Pagrashtak 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT#GUIDE. -Verdatum (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Fin©™ 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:GAMECRUFT User:Krator (t c) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hammer1980· 19:30, 5 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Article does not assert the notability of its topic. Written primarily with in-universe, Church of Scientology jargon. Only uses primary sources (L. Ron Hubbard), and no secondary sources, and has been tagged as such since August 2007, with no improvements since then. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). Cirt (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

Comment, expansion on delete reasoning -- If sources cannot be found outside of Hubbard's own writings and sufficient time has been given with the article tagged for sources to be provided, then the best place for this sort of information is a Church of Scientology website. Notability is not established here. We would not write an entire article on the Bible just referencing the Bible itself. We may quote from it, sure, or reference portions of it, but not the entire thing. Lack of any other sources/mention = lack of notability in this case. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

• Delete unless some outside sources are available. Or smerge into one of the other Scientology articles. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of sourcing and lack of notability.--DizFreak 18:32, 6 December 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 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Drawn to diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable student organization. The profusion of external links, as usual, raises suspicions about the motives of the authors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources on page, pure horseradish. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. a single news article found is from the university student newspaper which is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 10 December 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 close and redirect to Cloverfield. Until such time as there is enough verifiable information to support a separate article, any information should be added to the movie article as fictional corporations are rarely notable. ···日本穣 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Didn't know what to speedy this under, appears to just be a quote of some sort. 558 ghits; possibly a advertising head for a movie. OSborn_{contributionatoration} 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- A. B. 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fg2 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to Cloverfield- The Tagruato Corporation is part of the alternative reality game/viral marketing thingummy that's going on for the Cloverfield movie, although it isn't currently mentioned in the Cloverfield page- I'll see if I can get my other half onto that, he should know where to find the references. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:20, 7 December 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Possibly a hoax, as no reliable sources can be found to substantiate the claims made in this article. Obviously would be notable if they were true, and I will withdraw the nomination if proper sources can be found, but there is no evidence for any of the claims made. Example: article claims that he was the first Post Master general, something that should be easy to substantiate, yet no non-wiki sources can be found to back this up, not surprising either since the Indian Postal Service celebrated its 150th anniversary recently. Cheers, CP 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Seems like it could be a legitimate article, but with no verifiable references, and none to be found, there's no way to be certain. Delete, with no prejudice against any supporting evidence that others bring forward. I looked, but could not find any. Incidentally, the Indian postal system appears to be headed by the "Secretary of Posts" -- the current holder of that title is Shri. I.M.G. Khan. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:39, 10 December 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly a type of perpetual motion device and therefore subject to our rules surrounding the inclusion of fringe ideas, this article is about something which has received no mainstream recognition, popular press coverage, or even criticism/debunking. As such, it cannot be properly sourced except for by proponent websites which fail reiliability and verifiability tests. I think that this article is functioning as a soapbox for the claims of the inventor. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Delete Delete. Why does this stuff continue to show up? Per the nomination, this has a WP:FRINGE problem. In addition, the conspiracy to hold back this information clearly has successfully kept all mention of this breakthrough out of any reliable sources, so we'll just have to wait until some courageous person reveals THE TRUTH. Xymmax (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Keep and improve with the available sources Usually gadgets such as this are invented by a farmer in his barn. This one has as one of its investigators Prof. George Miley, professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois, and winner of the 1995 Edward Teller Medal from the American Nuclear Society .He has a track record in developing small scale fusion technologies (although they are not apparently net energy producers). The device operates with metal coated beads in an electrolytic chamber. It is not fringe science to study small scale (with eneergy loss) fusion as a neutron source. Whether it produces net energy, or whether it operates by fusion, are not clear. The article is a poorly written stub. The area is outside any expertise I might claim, but I find substantial discussion of it in reliable non-fringe, non-hype sources such as , , and . Even if disproved to be producing fusion, it satisfies WP:N, even if it turn out to be just more pathological science like the earlier cold fusion claims.Edison (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC
• Delete Keep. While initial searches revealed a fair amount of sources (potential reasons to keep the article), they all most lack credibility on further examination. I'm skeptical of the IEEE article as a scientific source because its authors are from the New Energy Institute (publishers of the New Energy Times). The article is only worth saving as Edison seems to have shown a sufficient level of notability, not on the basis of any scientific merit (as per WP:N) as Edison has rightly stated. It also seems to have been featured on "Good Morning America" on June 11, 1997 (). In any case, it'll need a lot of work to remove the soapboxing. St3vo (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I see this as satisfying the notability requirement, but not at all as a proven scientific fact. If it produced all that excess energy in 1995, why can't I power my car and heat my house with them today? The article badly needs the attention of someone with expertise in nuclear physics. Even science that doesn't pan out can satisfy the requirements for an article, such as N ray or Polywater. The thing that is needed is to fix the article by removing POV claims and soapboxing and stick to reporting what is stated in the sources. Edison (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: extensive coverage in popular press: Wired, Scientific American, Physics World. Also user Edison thanks for valuable input, basically user ScienceApologist is doing sloppy research before submitting articles for deletion and that is not the first time!. V8rik (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless this article merely says that this device is entirely impossible in theory and practice then it should be deleted. Perpetual motion machines cannot work and any claim otherwise is unverifiable because it must always be untrue. It would be wonderful if cold fusion actually worked but the very fact that the inventor of this device isn't the richest man in the world right now shows that his machine doesn't do what it claims. Nick mallory (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The scientific validity of the claims is irrelevant, although the article should certainly reflect the overwhelming expert opinion against the claims (as it does now). Importantly, however, the inventors of the device do not claim it is a perpetual motion machine any more than a nuclear reactor is a perpetual motion machine - they claim that the energy output comes from nuclear reactions happening at room temperature (that is, cold fusion). Bear in mind, I do not believe the device works, but it is unfair and simply incorrect to set up the perpetual motion straw man. St3vo (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • But it is a perpetual motion machine in theory and it's not a straw man to say so. It supposedly produces more energy than it uses and, if it worked, would just go on working forever. It doesn't use uranium as fuel in the same way as a nuclear reactor does - of course in reality it doesn't use uranium at all, but that's not the point. Patterson doesn't like to call it a cold fusion cell, although that's what it clearly claims to be as well. It violates the same laws of thermodynamics which make perpetual motion machines impossible. If you took this thing to the patent office and tried to patent it, they'd say no because it's a perpetual motion machine. That's the point of describing it as such. If you'd invented a machine which produced, essentially, unlimited amounts of free energy with no pollution wouldn't you patent it? Fusion is incredibly difficult because of the energies involved - notoriously it's always 20 years away from being mastered - and for this device to claim it can do it with 1.5 watts contrary to the whole of established physics and with no experimental data to justify it is just laughable. I was the one who bothered to rewrite the article and I still think it should be deleted. Nick mallory (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see my comment on the article's talk page, where I think the discussion of the device as a perpetual motion machine is more appropriate. Also, thanks for the rewrite - although I disagree with a few points, it's a tremendous improvement over what was there previously. St3vo (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article cites references and does not make any unreasonable claims: it gives a strong impression that the thing doesn't work. The thing has been discussed in a number of sources and therefore seems to be notable. By the way, cold fusion is not a perpetual motion machine. Fusion gets energy by changing deuterium into helium. The deuterium is the fuel, which eventually gets used up. Fusion is a well-known scientifically established source of energy. "Cold" fusion has not been shown to be possible, but it's inaccurate to refer to it as a "perpetual motion machine". --Coppertwig (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to delete, but Keep per notability (above). I deleted a bunch of OR and redundancy and claims that there is some connection between cold fusion and perpetual motion.... that is, most of the article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as cold fusion uses a fuel for fusion, clearly not a perpetual motion machine. Unless a star is also a perpetual motion machine. Or even a coal fired powerplant. (more energy is produced consuming coal, that is used to feed coal into the boilers). 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the 'inventor' of this thing says it's not a cold fusion device. The fact is, it's not anything but a figment of his imagination. Nick mallory (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• CETI avoids the term "cold fusion" to avoid the stigma associated with the Pons and Fleishman debacle, and because they claim not to know whether the alleged nuclear reactions are in fact "fusion." The bottom line is that they state that some form of nuclear reaction is the source of the energy, and nuclear fuel is (or would be) consumed in a finite amount of time. St3vo (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to just about satisfy notability criteria. Unclear on its face if it's perpetual motion or a variant on cold fusion, but either way fringe science and the balance of the article must reflect this (and, whilst much improved, I think further edits are required to this effect). LeContexte (talk) 11:04, 11 December 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. Davewild (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable mall in West Virginia, fails WP:RS. A search for sources online turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • 14:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are probably more articles like this that should be deleted. This mall is of no particular importance. I searched for more sources as well and couldn't find any. --Cyrus Andiron 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletions. -- A. B. 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 20:06, 5 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Mizuno, while being famous in cold fusion circles for three papers that made it into obscure mainstream publications, has not done anything of note to warrant the inclusion of this particular experiment at Knowledge (XXG). The papers he published in the mainstream only obliquely reference the contents of this article and ultimately there has been no mainstream attention paid to this experiment, nor has there been any popular press coverage, or critical/skeptical review. As such, the only sources we have to write the article do not rise to the standards needed to establish reliability and verifiability. Rather, they are all from fringe publications and essentially this article serves as a soapbox for cold fusion advocacy in violation of the fringe theory guidelines and undue weight policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a repeat of the polyneutron] discussion: the research presented is published in a peer-reviewed journal. There is nothing wrong with the Japanese journal of applied physics, so the source is reliable. I suggest that you focus on the type of pseudoscience NOT peer-review published. Popular press overage or inclusion in review articles is not a criterion. Your description of Mizuno is insulting. V8rik (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have not decided on this one but V8rick your argument is deeply flawed. Being published in a peer reviewed journal does not make anything notable per se. There are hundreds of thousands of topics published in peer reviewed journals every year and most do not deserve a wikipedia article of their own. Popular press coverage is very much an important (but not exclusive) criterion of notability. I think you need to review the notability guidelines. You have some serious misconceptions about it. Regarding verifiability a single peer reviewed article on a controversial topic is not sufficient. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Did you know that there is a single main stream peer reviewed article on intelligent design.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Nick Y. for your comment, no there is nothing wrong with my understanding of notability so there is no need to start insults. Notability applies to the article as a whole but merging with for instance the cold fusion article has never been considered, it went straight to a deletion proposal. A simple merge would solve the issue V8rik (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. That a journal, any journal, cared to publish the work is irrelevent. Mizuno still wrote it, so it's a primary source, and doesn't establish notability in the slightest. Press coverage is the easiest way to demonstrate notability, which this does not evidence. The way to do it with journals is to show that other researchers cared enough to repeat or build on his work and publish it themselves in respected journals. And I don't think there's much point stuffing a non-notable experiment into the cold fusion article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the last thing Knowledge (XXG) needs is more WP:FRINGEy cold fusion theories. sh¤y 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is violating the laws of thermodynamics and yet it's purporting to be science, so it gives an entirely misleading account of the facts of the matter. When your kettle's powered by cold fusion it'll deserve a place, not till then. Nick mallory (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to Web of Science, the key paper has been cited 3 times only, 2 of them by Mizuno himself. As for the importance of the effect, the article itself says nobody has replicated it. DGG (talk) 23:45, 8 December 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 a non-notable factory. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gyandzha Auto Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, no importance, short stub with no growth or change since started 18 months ago, near-orphan Mdbrownmsw (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- 30-second Google News archive search turns up numerous press mentions. --A. B. 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "numerous press mentions" do not establish notability. We need significant coverage, such as articles ABOUT the topic (rather than mere mentions of the plant). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrownmsw (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. -- A. B. 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If you are looking for references then please note that Gyandzha can also be spelt Ganja. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I've gotta go with delete, because even with some sources, its still not a notable plant. Mbisanz (talk) 16:05, 14 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Only assertion of notability is vocals on a single album released in Mexico, and even that not verifiable. Not sure this meets WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Should this article be deleted, the page should probably be directed to the Museum of Modern Art. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment fair, but I'm really looking for comment on the current content. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Museum of Modern Art would go as MoMA ;) the discussed article does not demonstrate the criteria for notability at present stage. Pundit|utter 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, delete, weakly, and not necessarily with prejudice; the article I read doesn't make a case that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I feel the article fails to demonstrate the notability criteria from WP:MUSIC, and although the article does state that the album the singer was involved in featured in a magazine, as per the first criterion, it is only one instance (rather then the required "multiple"), and the magazine apparently focused on the album, not the singer. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: per above Doc Strange (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as a redirect to Museum of Modern Art. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, but no salt. "MoMa" should be a redirect to "Museum of Modern Art", even though STYLE says it should be MoMA as someone searching for MoMA could easily type MoMa instead. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Recreate as redirect per others. Precious Roy (talk) 19:57, 5 December 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 Max Baucus. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Phillip E. Baucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A US Marine corporal killed in action in Iraq. Only claim to notability is his relation to a US Senator. Jmlk17 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge important info into Max_Baucus Red Fiona (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• As the creator of the article, I agree with the proposed merge. The death was widely reported in the news, and seemed poised to take on a larger political significance, but this did not materialize - other than this person's famous relation, he is no more significant than any other U.S. casualty in Iraq. bd2412 T 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per bd2412, the article's creator. --A. B. 18:03, 5 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I've tried and failed to find how this album or its creator are sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. Note that the main author is suspected of sockpuppet violations (though that shouldn't really affect our judgment of the content). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• I too have tried and tried again to find any sources. Delete. --Paul Erik 06:04, 12 December 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

She was the wife of two notable actors, but, as stated in the article, she failed to achieve any notability of her own. Delete. Blanchardb-Me_MyMouth-timed 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, she accomplished little to nothing on her own. However, would Monica Lewinski be famous at all had she not slept with Bill Clinton? No, Louise Stanley on her own is not known at all, short of a few excerpts here and there. But, she was an actress, and she was married to two fairly famous actors. That's more than Monica has done. In my opinion, do not delete.

• Keep. I think that the article establishes sufficient notability. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - ditto. Deb (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable by association. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the Six degrees of separation concept, everybody on Earth is notable by association.--Blanchardb-Me_MyMouth-timed 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability is not inherited. More sources needed to establish her own notability. Epbr123 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A lack of sources in the article is not a reason to delete. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• It depends whether any such sources exist. As none have been found yet, it is more likely they don't. Epbr123 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per sources found by Zagalejo. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment and that of another editor appear to have been accidently deleted. I tried to roll back to that version, with the thought of then cutting and pasting the subsequent comments back in place. I haven't been able to get that to work, so I am just pasting our missing comments here below. Xymmax

• Keep. Minor notability, but still notable. Xymmax (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. She may have had several notable husbands, but that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself admits that she is a "little known actress" with only "minor roles" that "never lifted her to stardom". What more do you need? A sign that says "DELETE ME!"? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. "Little known" is not the same as "not notable". All that can be claimed is that the article has not sufficiently established the subject's notability. I think that it has, but of course your mileage may vary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Out of curiosity, I ran her name through the Chicago Tribune's electronic archives, which I can access through my university library. I don't think she was quite as obscure as the present article may suggest. Here are a few sources that could be incorporated into the article:

• George Shaffer. "Chicago radio actress wins film contract". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 March 1936. (about her first big break)
• Antoinette Donnelly. "Shorter hair is definitely in, so get shears". Chicago Daily Tribune. 15 January 1939. (she gets about a paragraph describing her as one of the trendsetters)
• "Film couple reweds". Chicago Daily Tribune. 11 February 1940. (mentions that she was Randall's "leading lady" in a recent movie)
• "To seek divorce". Chicago Daily Tribune. 26 May 1940. ( Of note is the fact that only she gets a picture in the article)
• "Beauty beaten". Chicago Daily Tribune. 31 August 1944. (Describes how she was assaulted at a party; calls her one of the leading beauties of her day.)

And that's just from one paper. I'm sure there's lots more available elsewhere if more people are inclined to look. I'll add some stuff to the article sometime soon. Zagalejo^^^ 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just hit the New York Times archives and found some more stuff:

• "Louise Stanley Weds". New York Times. 28 August 1942. (about marriage to Charles A. Munn)
• "Man held in beating of Mrs. Louise Munn". New York Times. 31 August 1944. (Existence of this story in NYT firmly establishes that she was not just notable in Illinois)
• "Attack case continued". New York Times. 1 September 1944. (update on the above)

Stopped with these, but there's probably more. Zagalejo^^^ 07:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. Most of Zagalejo's references are related to her husband or to an assault, neither of which constitutes standalone Knowledge (XXG) notability. She still fails WP:BIO as an actress, specifically having "significant roles in notable films" or a "large fan base". I only recognize one or two of her films and, in those, she has very minor roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. So your argument therefore is that she has only minor notability? Notability is notability; the fact that you only recognise a couple of her films is immaterial, and a reflection on you, not her. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Some of the newspaper articles I found note that she was a "leading lady" in several films. Unfortunately, I haven't found many specific details about those films, largely because I can only access a couple of online newspaper archives going back to the 1930s/1940s. However, those brief descriptions are enough to make me confident that she was a well-known celebrity in her day. I will keep looking for sources until you change your mind. Zagalejo^^^ 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, here's one movie in which she has a leading role: . No, it doesn't have a Knowledge (XXG) article, but that's probably due to systemic bias. (FYI, a NYT article specifically describes her as "Tex Ritter's leading lady".) Zagalejo^^^ 09:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • She also had a major role in a film called Yukon Flight. Zagalejo^^^ 09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Listed on the poster for this one. Zagalejo^^^ 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I was able to do some research. Louise Stanley actually starred in twenty four films, many with Tex Ritter, Bob Steele, and a few other actors of the day. I see no reason why she would be deleted. I have updated her page, and added the biography titled "B-Western Ladies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.74.97 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep The nominator should have looked for references first, and improved the article--since she isnt the least obscure. . Of course, the real problem is the inexperience of the guy who wrote the article, who not only didnt look properly himself but was naive enough to write an article beginning "a little known actress", DGG (talk) 16:11, 11 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where You Belong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete due to notability issues. We should not have articles for any company slogan unless that slogan gave extreme social or moral effects. Even Nike, Inc. have no "Just do it" article. Lenticel 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, "Where You Belong" is already mentioned in the network's article where it belongs; no evidence given for independent notability outside its network. -- Mithent (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Rami R (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This topic is not even significantly covered on the company's own corporate website. It does not appear to be notable. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also note, I just removed the lyrics included in the article due to WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:COPY. So now the article has even less notable content. -Verdatum (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

*Rescue/Weak Keep. Okay, for the non-Filipinos here, that may seem non-notable, but Where You Belong is pretty much the Filipino equivalent to Still The One. We can expand on this one some more, then decide on what to do. So, for now, it's time to rescue. Also, I find it hard to believe we have no article on Just do it ViperSnake151 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply That's the beginning of a compelling argument. Do you believe there is evidence to show that it has notability outside the network? Further Do you believe there are references capable of providing sufficient content related to the topic to warrant it's own article? As a retired theme song it seems sufficient to keep the information within GMA Network. I suspect that if Just Do It was not already an article, it would be a redirect to Nike, Inc., perhaps that's appropriate here. I'm uncertain. The Nike slogan would never warrant an article of it's own, as it would only be a brief extension upon the significance and origin of the term. -Verdatum (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Merge/Redirect Okay, if that's the case, maybe we should just merge it into the main GMA article and redirect it to the "Branding of the GMA Network" section. --ViperSnake151 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No further assertions of notability; lyrics and trivia. No social impact or economic impact either. --βritandβeyonce 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fancruft. It's just a friggin' motto that is better left on the original GMA7 article. ---Tito Pao (talk) 04:42, 7 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced stub on a woman whose claim to notability appears to consist solely of being the mother of a politician. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Maralia (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Maralia and WP:NOTINHERITED. No sources either, though that's only one of the problems. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:12, 5 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

It is unclear why this film passes the standards of WP:NF. PROD was removed without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Pit-Fighter. This film is a spin-off of the notable video game, Pit-Fighter. Bláthnaid 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Namely why? i.e., which criteria of WP:NF does it pass? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • , , , , The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • For the first one: David Nusair seems to be wider known; for the second: is J. D. Nguyen really a nationally known critic? The last two are user-generated content, they certainly don't qualify under WP:NF. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but this now seems to be quite bureaucratic. One or two or three critics like on the fish market. What do you think with user-generated content, what do you think that the distribution is? Selling from the car directly on the parking? Throwing from the plane? ≈Tulkolahten≈ 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the level that WP:NF sets: two reviews by nationally known critics (as you cited). The consensus is two reviews for notability, not one. (That's similar, for example, to requiring two published albums for a notable band, cf. WP:MUSIC.) With user-generated content, I was referring to the customer reviews at Amazon and CD Universe, which are posted by users of the website. These self-published reviews are not deemed to be reliable sources; see WP:SPS for an explanation why. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Those last two are examples that it is widely published. Not reviews. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping the article, mainly because it appears to (barely) meet the requirements of notability. There are critical reviews, though not many. And, the film was apparently distributed widely. The article is badly in need of cleanup, though. ZZ ~ Evidence 19:43, 12 December 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 --JForget 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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