Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 28 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close as the first one isn't even closed yet. —Kurykh 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

lulz Wwowbaby 17:42, 28 July 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. Mhiji 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of paintball terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a Dictionary so it has Glossary of terms .Pharaoh of the Wizards 11:29, 28 July 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 JoshuaZ 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show Themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list, unsourced. Oli Filth 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Fix or delete It could probably be fixed, but is now just a bunch of lists, and likely won't get fixed anyway. If it stays, it needs to explain a bit about wth the lists are, what makes them important, ref it and give it some context, not just at the top, but for each year. Then it would an article, and not a list. Pharmboy 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Where is all this sourced from and are there significant coverage from independent sources on the themes of the fashion show? Corpx 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - personally, I can't see the necessity of this piece. Wouldn't it be better to have this mentioned in the main article, maybe as a short paragraph indicating the themes for each year? This doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, and could perhaps be considered a little overly trivial. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix or delete--the themes belong, but I am not sure of the models, and the trivia section is the most empty of all trivia sections seen this week. Whether those paragraphs should go in the main article or here , i do not know. It might be easier to delete. DGG (talk) 04:24, 29 July 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. Far too self-promotional, virtually all external links are self-referential. And yes, as an llc, the organizations and companies notability guideline does apply. Future recreation remains an option, but only with these concerns having been fully addressed. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is basically an advertisment for this group of video game players and their "partners". I don't feel it asserts enough notability to survive AfD, so I'm putting it up. DurinsBane87 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That TWO tonight ;) I would simply say they are ORGANIZED and a huge step above a clan, winning actual money (that is notable) and sponsored by one of the largest computer makers (one week ago on Dell.com's site, notable) and are not playing a single game, thus they are professional gamers, not people who play "a" game. Ok, they need to trim the spam from the ARTICLE, but they are unique in gaming and noteworthy, even if the article needs work, which isn't a reason to delete. Ok, it barely makes it under the wire, but they are very far from some CS clan with a long flash intro using free web hosting. Pharmboy 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Supersonic Delete per WP:CORP... There are no secondary sources that establish notability, only primary sources, and a whole circle of self-referential (read: industry and fancruft) stuff. If I were an admin, I would have speedy deleted on those grounds. We have deleted businesses with much more ghits before because of lack of secondary source notability. Just because we are a bunch of geek who dream of being able to make a living of our mad gaming skillz, doesn't mean WP:CORP doesn't apply - this *is* a business. BTW, the whole "partners" section with logos and all that is total unencyclopedic, OR, advertising, and I am removing it. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Then it's good your not an admin, as it doesn't meet speedy in any way (according to the actual speedy policies), regardless of any other opinion of the article. Dell's sponsoring seems to be a secondary source as well, an actual endorsement.
* http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=823484475&channel=823412078 where they are competing in China (international competition seems noteworthy, they aren't just geeks sitting in mom's basement)
* AGAIN, the link above is covered by multiple news outlets, including , and , and others. I don't know the guys, don't really care except policy seems to getting ignored simply because of what they WERE, and not what they ARE. They ARE organized, compete internationally (ie: fly there, not from home), have the endorsement and funding from Dell, generating winnings, and every game blog (albeit, tiny sites) has covered them. It is a novel field as well. I fail to see how this makes them NOT noteworthy. They need to trim the garbage out of the article, BUT this is not a valid reason to delete the article, it is a reason to tag it or edit it out. I am just confused as to why others here can't seem to find all the 3rd party references, and I'm tired of doing others dirty work. Pharmboy 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
None of those are particulary reliable sources. Get me the New York Times technology or business pages, or the Wall Street journal. Please read and understand WP:CORP. Yes they might be notable enough to deserve mention in an article related to gaming in wikipedia, but not enough to justify a corporate page. Please keep advertising out of wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Statesman.com is the web outlet of the Austin American Statesman, a print newspaper founded in 1871 serving Austin, Texas. Are you suggesting this is not a reliable source? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is a good source for Dell, but it is not about Team Pandemic. Riding someone else's notability is not reliable sourcing. A reliable source is not just a publication but the ocntext of the actual source itself. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree the spammier portions need removing, but that is an edit and shouldn't be used as a question of whether they are notable or not. Also, I gave just a few quick links, there are hundreds from smaller sites the sheer volume of references from small but real sites is more than adequate, and it is easy to look and see this. AND the first link I gave is from DELL's site. Keep and remove the advert parts of it. They are notable, they just don't know how to write a proper Knowledge (XXG) article. Pharmboy 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Pharmboy's findings and this which seems to suggest the team was featured on CBS Sports this past weekend. I'm not getting the WP:CORP argument as this seems to be a sports team of sorts, not a corporation. Spam needs removing.--Sethacus 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The article itself say it is a corporation. Professional sports teams are subjected to WP:CORP too, and we have deleted non-notable professional sports teams before.--Cerejota 06:06, 31 July 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 JoshuaZ 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mook Productions, LLC. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I previously nominated this article for non controversial deletion, but the tag was removed so I will do it here. This page falls under 'blatant advertisement' and fails WP:NOTE, as a search reveals only this wiki page and the companies' own page. References are only praise of the company. Ravenmasterq 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blackened thrash metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unused term and play upon Blackened Death Metal based purely on editors opinions of how heavy a Black/Death album is. Note also Deathrash which was previously (and will again soon be) deleted due to consensus of a the same specultive inbetween genres of Death and Thrash Metal. Jimmi Hugh 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Worker file manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. No 3rd party sources to indicate how this software is notable. Almost no changes since the article was tagged back in May for notability issues so now its up for deletion. --Hdt83 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 70.110.164.36 23:23, 28 July 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, default to Keep. Walton 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List of largest cities in England by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been labelled with the totally disputed template for several days, due to the completely misleading and inaccurate title and contents. See talk, there has been general consensus for deletion or merging. DWaterson 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I support deletion. Redirect to "Largest urban areas". --Concrete Cowboy 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are misleading, city does not solely exist under the British definition. A city is not necessairly a settlement that has been granted city status by royal apporvement, by all means Walsall is a city per say. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
They do in the United Kingdom! Nevertheless, your point is reasonable - hence why a move to Primary Urban Areas in England is in my opinion a sensible choice. It should be noted that PUAs are NOT the same thing as Urban Areas, but are agglomerations of local authorities. Therefore a use of the unqualified term "Urban Area" should be avoided - as they are defined entirely differently by built-up areas, and are not related to local authority boundaries in any way. Fingerpuppet 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
UA, PUA, same terms designated an arbitrary and non unitary area... I could come up with an 'area' type notion now, it doesn't make it any more manageable. Both terms and ideas are lose and it is precisely because those terms are used solely for analytical purposes see ONS quote above that they aren't appropriate for yet another meaningless list article. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What is "loose" about Urban Area definitions? An Urban Area is a "built-up area that has gaps in development of less than 50m". Seems pretty exact to me. Fingerpuppet 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - "A city is not necessarily a settlement that has been granted city status by royal " - well, actually consensus on Knowledge (XXG) has been, for a long time, that yes, that is exactly the only accurate usage. See City status in the United Kingdom (a Featured Article). DWaterson 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember saying that american cities were only designated as such thanks to a royal charter... I'd hat eto ink New York being called a town, maybe I've missed something but Knowledge (XXG) EN is not British but English in language. Anyway, this is all non consequential considering the lobbying that has been made and the member to who the petitioning was made to. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
But this isn't a US topic, but a UK one. Therefore the UK definition is the correct one, just as UK English grammar and spelling is used in articles relating to and within the United Kingdom, rather than the US English versions. Fingerpuppet 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Maintaining the lsit as such is elitism and is not a correct representation of the largest places with lots of people in cities in the UK, oh sorry the article is narrow enough to be about England only... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, sorry? DWaterson 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Urban Areas" in the United Kingdom have a different meaning to this list, and are named differently. Urban Areas deal with built-up areas. Primary Urban Areas (which is what this list is) are agglomerations of local authorities. As an example, the Greater Manchester Urban Area is very different from the "Manchester" Primary Urban Area. There are also Primary Urban Areas called "Bolton" and "Rochdale" (based upon those local authorities), whereas the towns of Bolton and Rochdale are part of the GMUA - along with other towns such as Wilmslow which are not in any of the PUAs. Fingerpuppet 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as copyright violation. -- lucasbfr 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow Chorale of Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delaware community chorus (albeit with a noble goal) that fails WP:MUSIC. No references or assertion of notability. Also is overly promotional in tone and borders on WP:SPAM. Eliz81 23:11, 28 July 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. Jaranda 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

not notable and most sources are a novelization FreedomByDesign 22:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • keep sufficient good sources exist. Clarify what comes from the novelisation & remove unless it too is notable. consider re-titling. All editing questions. DGG (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
correction--it is not a novelization, but I am frankly not sure it's a sufficiently RS to stand alone, and this sort of material needs additional support. At least the court decisions can be cited from better sources. And the tone does need improvement, best done by omission of unencyclopedic detail. DGG (talk) 04:41, 29 July 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 JoshuaZ 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Obviously non-notable "sport". WP:NFT. Unreferenced. Creator's name is similar to the editor that created the article so probably WP:COI as well. De-proded by author with no explanation. eaolson 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Puerto Rican Spanish. Pascal.Tesson 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced--and possible original research--article on an expression unique to Puerto Rican Spanish. Seems inappropriate since this is the English Knowledge (XXG) after all. Wiktionary and/or the Spanish Knowledge (XXG) are probably more appropriate places for this article. --Miskwito 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; unsourced OR and dicdef. I had hoped that something could have been salvaged here, but, without sources, it's no better than a hoax. Heather 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont think en.wiki is the place for phrases from other languages unless its widespread use by english speakers is proven. Corpx 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any info that can be useful into Puerto Rican Spanish, I can guarantee the phrase is not a hoax and deleting is not the way to solve everything. -凶 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, we need more than your guarantee. Do you have a slang dictionary that lists the phrase? That might be a place to start, but still would give us little more than a dicdef. Some academic papers discussing the phrase would do well. Heather 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just browsing the web I found an article in El Vocero's webpage with a title involving sayd phrase, , there is also this article . As a side note Yahoo! search has 78,200 hits for it. -凶 23:43, 29 July 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. The content is available on request for any mergers not contrary to the consensus developed here. Sandstein 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Galactic Empire ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:GrandAd.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:LineCaptain.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:ImpHighAdmiral.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:HighAdm.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:HighColonel.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:HighAdm2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

No assertions of notability, no sources (reliable or otherwise), contains original research, does not meet writing-about-fiction requirements. --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - The only bit of notability asserted in Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire is that the rank system "has since become a major point of speculation, conjecture, and entertainment by Star Wars fans" -- but this is wholly without substantiation. Indeed, that article also contains original research with few real-world connections (the closest being claims of "production error" without supporting citation); it may also warrant deletion, or at least stubification for a complete re-write. --EEMeltonIV 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
With or without substantiation, notability is asserted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Notability isn't established in the Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire article, merely asserted. That article also says that these ranks are a point of speculation by fans and have never actually been established. There's no data. This article even says one of the insignia is based on conjecture. eaolson 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: If this article is deleted, care should be made to retain the information about Grand Admiral. There are plenty of sources for information about that Imperial rank (the entire Zahn triology to begin with) and Grand Admiral (Star Wars) used to be its own article. The rank has appeared in dozen of Star Wars books, comic books and video games. Yet another reason why this should have been discussed before jumping into a deletion vote...some of the article has merit to be sure.-OberRanks 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Surely you meant "Star Wars". Can you assert even how grand admiral has *real world* notability? Yes, it matters in the Star Wars universe, but what influence or importance has it had in a galaxy not as far away? --EEMeltonIV 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Star Wars. Pardon me. With that point you made, then at least the Grand Admiral insignia picture and some of the data should be merged in with Thrawn. I found 228 thousand internet hits on him when I searched Yahoo. -OberRanks 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
comment: maybe transwiki to a galaxy far, far, away... --Jack Merridew 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, I already gave a delete comment above. The merges were a tempoary solution, because an AfD would not have passed 18 months ago. — Deckiller 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable funcruft, indeed. Looks like a pile of OR, too. Parent article cites a video game as a sources; AfD it next. --Jack Merridew 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I reviewed the article this morning and the ranks of Grand Admiral, High General, Surface Marshal, and Line Captain can be traced directly to sources either appearing in movies or mentioned in novels. Those were only the ones I was able to easily find, I'm sure there are others. Admiral, Captain, and Commander are also very common Imperial ranks complete with sources. I have to say the article does not look like OR; just an article without proper sourcing. -OberRanks 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (executed by AndonicO, claiming WP:CSD#A7.) --Aarktica 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying Purple Hippo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game guide + non-notable clan Corpx 20:41, 28 July 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 JoshuaZ 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jochum de Lange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be very notable (47 Google hits). Neutrality 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Two difficult things to use English language Google for: historical figures and figures notable in non-English speaking countries. This article is both things, so I would discourage the use of Google hits as the basis of notability. I tried to do a variety of searches, and this link refers to both the event described in the article, and the man involved (this appears to be even better, but Babelfish isn't helping me understand it too well). I would encourage those users familiar with historical sources and the Norwegian language to try to dig up sources to establish notability. Some Strilekrigen articles don't seem to reference him, so perhaps Strilekrigen should be an article, and the current one not. I withhold keep/delete recommendation for now, though. Eliz81 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Also I redid the header to conform to AfD norms, preserving the original nom. Eliz81 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that english speaking individulals may have problems verifying the facts about Jochum de Lange. But he is a wellknown character amoung local historians. and it is not hard for anyone who understands Norwegian to verify this information, due to articles in books and on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superveg (talk • contribs)

Regardless of the language they're in, can you provide us with some verifiable sources attesting to his notability? Eliz81 18:23, 29 July 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 — Caknuck 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agua Dulce Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not apparently notable elementary school. --ROGER  20:32, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards (Technology Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Technology writer with no clear notability. Notability tagged on 15th July with no response. There are no non-trivial inward links. Article comprises the sole contributions of Ekeiser (talk · contribs), with no substantive contributions by other editors, which suggests possible vanity. Given the common nature of the subject's name, Google hits are of little use here. Although the subject has contributed to several high-profile publications, such contributions do not seem to me to constitute automatic notability, and there's no evidence that any of his articles generated any significant response. The strongest claim to notability appears to be the books published, but of the four books mentioned, one is listed at Amazon under a completely different author name , which suggests ghostwriting not authorship, one has an Amazon sales rank of 729,639 and the others have sales ranks well over a million . No reviews or other information are cited, and I couldn't find any other than on specialist publications/websites in Google search. Espresso Addict 20:24, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The lost boys 2 the tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's ... nothing to really say about this movie. Essentially admits it's crystallish, stating that "not very much is known but we will soon find out." Blueboy96 19:12, 28 July 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. Concerns about notability and referencing have not been addressed. However, no prejudice against recreation if such sources are found. Pascal.Tesson 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

John Paul II Minor Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school The Evil Spartan 19:09, 28 July 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 G7 (author requests deletion) Deletion made by User:B, non-admin closure by me. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Please delete - I spelt the name wrong Jack1956 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment. I fixed this nom as it was malformed. Also, if you want the page deleted and you're the only author, you can use the {{db-author}} template to request speedy deletion. I see someone alreaady tagged it as {{db-author}}, so let's just let that run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:57, 28 July 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 JoshuaZ 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Story about a Hindu boy that reeks of WP:HOAX. I was considering requesting speedy delete per G10 attack page, but I'm not sure it clearly qualifies, despite some inherently hurtful language. Not verifiable or sourced story. Eliz81 18:40, 28 July 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 Yochai Benkler. Pascal.Tesson 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Neologism (WP:NEO) coined by professor. Fails notability requirements, as does not appear to be widely cited or accepted terminology. Prod was contested and removed: see Talk:Jalt for reasons why. Eliz81 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep - I dont see where the Prod was contested on the talk page. I just see an explanation as to why it should be kept. Benkler is a prominent figure in the free culture movement, of which Knowledge (XXG) is a part. This is a term we should all be familiar with. Danny 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    My mistake... the talk page includes reasons for keeping it, and the prod was removed by the 'prodder'. Eliz81 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Benkler was a speaker at Wikimania 2006, and is renowned for this particular essay. Why does the existence of this verifiable and detailed description harm anyone that it's in Knowledge (XXG). Incredible that it's even being proposed here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    (e/c)Comment Would you mind citing some references of its notability? Its inclusion certainly doesn't 'harm' anyone, but it still needs verifiable (WP:V) sources to establish the widespread acceptance and usage of term. If it is truly an established term and does not violate WP:NEO, I'm more than happy to reconsider my nomination. Eliz81 19:00, 28 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Trickle Creek Golf Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    stub that was improved. I can't prove it - if it is on the website, I didn't see it - but I swear this sounds like a brochure they send out to interested golfers or tour promoters. Postcard Cathy 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) PS By that I mean copyright vio 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Comment. Yes, it was a pretty much a straight c&p from here and hence a copyvio. I have edited back down to a stub. --Malcolmxl5 19:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    P.S. And added assertation of notability and references. --Malcolmxl5 19:43, 28 July 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. Walton 18:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Mary Choksi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    Biography of a businesswoman. There is a sufficient assertion of notability to make it un-speediable but I don't believe that the criteria in WP:N or WP:BIO are satisfied, unless there is some additional information that my internet search has missed. CIreland 18:26, 28 July 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 & Userfy. The principal author of the page is Bradbooker, who created the page in their namespace. I have reverted their user page to the most recent version and left a note on their talk page. — Caknuck 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Subject appears to be non-notable, even as stipulated in the article (host of a local morning radio show). Google does have 2000 hits, but it's not clear if it's the same Brad Booker. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Kuat Drive Yards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Nine months after original AfD, KDY still does not have an appreciable out-of-universe write-up and still lacks citations. Role in The Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy is stubbish, and I'd be okay with a redirect to that collection if such an entry exists.

    I am also nominating the following related pages

    Santhe/Sienar Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Incom Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Corellian Engineering Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    While all four these companies may have manufactured notable things -- X-wings, Star Destroyers, the Millennium Falcon, etc. -- the companies themselves do not meet notability muster. None of them meet the the writing about fiction guidelines. --EEMeltonIV 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • That's the point. They're only only notable in the fictional universe. Corpx 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, it's generally agreed that good information alone is not a good reason to delete. For example, the sex life of Lady Bird Johnson might be considered good information by some people, but it's not very notable (unless there was a huge sex scandal). For fiction, a subarticle is notable only if there is significant real-world information from primary and secondary sources. — Deckiller 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - they're mentioned a lot in the Star Wars books and stuff. However, I can't find any evidence they're even remotely important outside of this. Perhaps more useful on a Star War Wiki. --Haemo 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete all; the Star Wars fanboys have left, so my "cruft dam" argument no longer has to apply (thankfully). — Deckiller 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - This pages fits in with the entire series listed at the bottom of the article: Star Wars Companies. If this template is deleted, all of them should be and I disagree with the deletion of any of them. Despite the fact that no one is capable of sourcing the information properly, I know for a fact that the information is widespread across the literature base of Star Wars being found in many of the novels, source books, and comics. This page needs someone who can source it, but should not be deleted. And whether wookiepedia has an in-depth listing for this is irrelevant of whether this article stays or not.
      –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - As Deckiller pointed out, having good information is not a compelling reason to keep. Yes, there being lots of information, both in the articles and in the rest of the EU, about these companies -- but is there any material out there that indicates these fictional companies have had any influence on the *real* world? (And, as an aside, I think there might be a little emotional attachment here, considering your user name is "KuatofKDY" ;-) ) --EEMeltonIV 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete, by overwhelming consensus. Mention of some of these people could be made in a related article, preferably in non-list format. El_C 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of notable Jalpaigurians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Should be replaced with Category:People from Jalpaigur, which I've already started Corpx 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • I strongly disagree with you. Having red links in a list is not a way to get articles created. You can request them at the appropriate wikiproject or elsewhere, but I dont think this is the way to go about it. Corpx 21:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's one blue link and six links total. Not a particularly useful list. Furthermore, the category is vaguley defined. "Notability" is a judgement call at best. From WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources...." eaolson 22:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per TenPoundHammer and that list should be also merged (if not done) with the main article.--JForget 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, deleting an article is incompatible with merger. Per the GFDL, authorship must be preserved and in the case of Knowledge (XXG) that means article history. When merging, one of the parent articles is redirected to the other, not deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete -- More than two years old and still only one blue link shows this hasn't encouraged creation of the other articles, and deleting it won't prevent anyone from creating those articles later. And why "notable"? Only notable people should be added to lists, so to name them notable is redundant. Saikokira 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, who are these people anyway? (in other words, indiscriminate list.) Punkmorten 08:14, 29 July 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 — Caknuck 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Apparently non-notable rapper. Article attempts to assert notability by claiming his connexions with a notable record company, but it gives no independent sources. Nyttend 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    He deserves a page. Tavian Washington— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavian151 (talk • contribs) — Tavian151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

    The result was Delete and recreate a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Adele Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    • Delete and redir to Big Brother 2002 (UK) and fullprot if necessary. /Blaxthos 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Known only for 1 event, and that is to appear on a reality show. I do not think that's historic notability Corpx 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete; yet another reality show nonwinner. Consensus seems to be that simply having participated is not adequate to satisfy WP:BIO. Heather 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. She's had her 15 minutes of fame. There's no long-term historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect and protect NN. Saikokira 01:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Protect I am the original author of this article. I disagree with the argument made by “dalejenkins”, “A non-noteable Reality TV contestant” who “did not make any significant contribution to the programme”, Adele Roberts was voted number one on “Big Brother’s Best Moments” on Channel 4 for the argument with Jade Goody. In response to the comment that she has “achieved nothing since the programme finished”, Miss Roberts has been presenting the Smooth Grooves show on 97.4Rock fm for five years (hardly an achievement of a ‘flash-in-the-pan reality TV contestant), a sister-station of Kiss Radio and member of the Emap group, which, in it’s latest RAJAR figures, was found to have more listeners than the Tim Westwood show(widely regarded as the best in his field) for her TSA, even more impressive when it is taken into account that it was in direct competition as both shows aired at the same time. I wrote this article as a listener to Miss Roberts’ show and as I was researching her for a project and thought this listing would be helpful to others to use for similar purposes. It was not intended as a ‘promotional’ article or to magnify her ‘fame’. As far as I am aware, Knowledge (XXG) is an online encyclopedia intended to gather information on a vast variety of subjects, people, places etc. so it is a readily available source of learning. It is NOT however a measure of ‘fame’ or ‘celebrity’ by a person’s appearance on it and so I believe an article should not be removed purely because some users have personal dislikes or believe they are “not famous enough”. Adele Roberts could be a relevant article on Knowledge (XXG) for her job alone with no reference to Big Brother, this can be seen in the number of links on her page to other Wiki articles e.g. Artists she has interviewed and had as guests on her show (eg.50 cent, Akon, Alicia Keys, Usher, Jamie Foxx etc). I am a new user on Knowledge (XXG), I apologise if this is a somewhat ‘hefty’ response! Not used to Wiki etiquette yet! Princess Bobie 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. That is no reason to keep the article. It reads like a trivia page-which is one of the things that Knowledge (XXG) is not. Long long unsourced lists of artists who have appeared on a radio show-many artists appear on radio shows-some are impossible to list and source. You say "Adele Roberts was voted number one on “Big Brother’s Best Moments” on Channel 4 for the argument with Jade Goody". Where is this in the article? Where is the source? You say she has more listeners that Westwood. Where is this in the article? Where is the source? You say that Westwood is considered "as the best in his field". Where is this in the article? Where is the source? Does this fail WP:POV? The article also fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:BIO. It also fails WP:N. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I completely agree with your comments that some facts need backing up; the article is a work in progress (as I said I'm new to wikipedia & still finding my feet) & I still have lots to add to the page. As you've pointed out surely the article needs more sources adding rather than deletion? Thanks for your advice Dale I'll get to work backing up a few of my facts! Princess Bobie 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep IIF the "Various TV" presenting roles can be expanded upon and sourced. I'd also like to see the ILR radio gig sourced. Both are notable roles outside of Big Brother that would normally warrant an article. The JPS 18:18, 30 July 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. —Kurykh 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Sequoia Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not obviously notable middle school. Mostly un-encyclopedic content. --ROGER  16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete. CitiCat 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    This "theory" appears to have been made on Knowledge (XXG). A Google search supports the view that this was created on Knowledge (XXG) and was copied elsewhere. So, this should be deleted because it is complete OR... even if it miraculously isn't, then it an utterly non-notable "theory." The Behnam 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Redirect. The problem is that there currently is no satisfactory target since the district article does not yet exist. In the meantime, redirected to Hayward, California. I encourage anyone interested to start the article on the district and modify the redirect as well as merge any useful content. Pascal.Tesson 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Anthony W. Ochoa Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Disputed {{prod}}. Non-notable middle school. --ROGER  16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    STRONG KEEP You have to give an article more than 8 hours to be improved and for the stub tag to "work" esp. when it is a school and those that know the most about the subject are on vacation. I see give it a few months and revisit later this year.Postcard Cathy 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    PS Roger was so interested in deleting this that it only took him 1/2 hour to prod it. COME ON! Be a little less trigger happy and give an article time to grow. It isn't like this is an article about how many schools give out gold stars and how many schools give out silver stars to their students. This has potential and you have to give it more than 1/2 hour and 8 hours before you prod/afd. 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comments (1) Prod gives five days to sort out the issues. That's not exactly holding a gun at someone's head and, despite the vacations, this was posted this morning. (2) Notability is about non-trivial/indepth coverage from independent third party sources not the word of a parent or teacher. Why should we wait months for material that is required by policy to be in the article from the start? (3) I have no axe to grind on this. I googled and nothing significant turned up. FYI, I also "rescued" a couple of articles from CSD this morning by adding sources and material to them. --ROGER  18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Hayward Unified School District and geographically in Alameda County. --ROGER  06:46, 30 July 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 — Caknuck 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    List of films featuring museums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Didn't want to have to bring this to AfD but the PROD was removed. Fits exact criteria of what shouldn't be made into a list on wikipedia. Bulldog123 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Point of Information Only equalled by Category: Films about High Class Call Girls and Category:Films about Prostitution --ROGER  19:49, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Kats (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Promotion of unreleased game `'Míkka 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Redirect to James Coburn, content already on the James Coburn page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    James Coburn filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    this filmography of this actor shouldn't be seperated from his biography Benjaminso 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Big Poppa E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    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 non-notable (A7). ELIMINATORJR 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Pete Cooper (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Vanity page of a nonnotable person. Presenter at a student's radio station. `'Míkka 15:24, 28 July 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, although I would assume good faith that this is not a POINT violation. The many delete votes at the least suggest the standard is not crystal clear. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Battle of the Pelennor Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This does not follow Knowledge (XXG) WP:NOTE standards and is an extraordinarily too-detailed article on a fictional event which amounts to a detailed plot summary. This should not be merged, as it is already discussed on the main page of the War of the Ring, and its present summary on the War of the Ring page is suitable enough. Furthermore, this nomination for deletion is to bring universal enforcement in-line with the recent decision to delete the Second Battle of Hogwarts article for reasons of excessive plot summary, notability violations, and fan cruft. (Proponents' arguments in favor of deletion found here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Second battle of Hogwarts) These same arguments are applicable to Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The article for the Second Wizarding War was likewise deleted, and with it all traces of the First Battle of Hogwarts (otherwise known as the Battle of the Astronomy Tower) and is treated with a few sentences in the \Half Blood Prince page. Yet, this has been committed to film, has been the subject of countless articles and interviews and it was axed for the same reasons I now propose deleting Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The aforementioned articles were far less detailed than Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Evidently Knowledge (XXG) is not a fansite, be it Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, and this article violates this tenet. Auror 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per nom. And do the same to the rest of the LOTR battle articles. Clarityfiend 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to War of the Ring per nom. Anomie 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      Rewrite or Redirect to War of the Ring. Even though the nomination was probably pointy, as it stands the article is just a series of plot summary and doesn't pass WP:FICT. Several comments below are claiming that there are reliable secondary sources dealing with this battle; I have no objection to their rewriting the article to have a more concise plot summary and a large section based on critical analysis and reception. Anomie 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete This is a fictional topic/event with no real world implications. This would be more appropriate in a LOTR wiki somewhere Corpx 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. WP:POINT. I would elaborate but I really cannot be bothered wasting my time. —Xezbeth 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete per Corpx. Also, I really don't understand the reference to WP:POINT and associated keep vote (nor do i understand the reason for the language used). /Blaxthos 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep, as nomination is in violation of WP:POINT as noted by Xezbeth. Are you going to nominate Category:Fictional battles and everything in it for deletion? Or what about Ministry of Magic, which also is, as Corpx says, a fictional topic with no real world implications? Knowledge (XXG) is not paper, and the existence of an article on this topic (although admittedly a shorter article) is not inherently a problem. Moreover, as a significant battle in a significant book, it has been covered by multiple sources: the article surely could exist as a discussion of the various radio and movie treatments, and I expect that there has been other outside discussion of the battle that would be relevant. Unlike Second Hogwarts, this book has been out for fifty years, and it's been referenced far more than Second Hogwarts, which hasn't appeared in much more than the book itself. Nyttend 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Look at Google Scholar: the first page shows two different references in what appears to me to be a scholarly journal maintained by Johns Hopkins University. Also, this JSTOR article in the journal The South Central Bulletin. Page 2 gives a link to a reference in the British Medical Journal, an article Venerable or vulnerable: ageing and old age in JRR Tolkien’s The lord of the rings. I can't get access to those pages on this computer right now, but this quick search shows that there's plenty of independent, scholarly reference. Nyttend 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    I looked through the available google scholar hits and they all dont seem to give "significant" coverage to this topic. I cant look at JSTOR at home, so I cant comment on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I've notified the Middle-earth WikiProject and some notable members, who I'm sure have some things to say. The article could use pruning, especially in the Adaptations area where much is repeated. CNN.com put the depiction of the battle in the New Line film in an article about their "best and worst" battle scenes in films. I believe we have the textual and conceptual history of the battle found in The History of Middle-earth series, published by the author's son.
    • Delete per nom. This is an extended plot summary and the arguments that prevailed at the Second Wizarding War discussion seem valid here to me. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep WP:POINT nomination which stinks of WP:WAX (look at the username) and seems to be targeted to the biggest battle of the Legendarium. CNN's coverage of the battle in an article about New Line also makes me lean more towards keep. The "reliable secondary sources" part of the notability guideline is easily met as The History of Middle-earth is a deeply analytical text. Yes, it was written by Chris Tolkein, because he has access to the source material - I doubt the Tolkein estate would release THoMe just to make a quick buck, so in my mind it passes the "independent of the subject". Will 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      How is this article not a violation of WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT standards? Furthermore, if precedent is to be followed and/or looked to as a guide for future decisions, one need only to seek out the debate on Second Wizarding War which was deleted on grounds of non-notability although it was committed to film (the same situation that Battle of the Pelennor Fields falls under). The secondary source you reference (The History of Middle-earth) is an extension of the same literary franchise, and cannot qualify. The article links to no other articles or sources covering the contents of the article, therefore not verifying that it is in fact notable enough to be devoted to such an extensive plot summary singular page. I seek only to enforce deletion policy in a uniform manner without selective decisions as to what qualifies for its own page on Knowledge (XXG). Taking the very recent decisions to purge Potter articles, I can see no other route than to follow the same course for essentially identical Lord of the Rings and other fictional articles. The Second Battle of Hogwarts is the battle of the entire Potter canon, just as you state Pelennor Fields was for LotR. I simply expect fair enforcement. Auror 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    The Battle of the Pelennor Fields covers about half of Book 5 (that includes the Ride of the Rohirrim, Denethor's pyre, etc). Again, just because the son of the author wrote History does not mean that it's not independent. Besides, Google Scholar is giving us papers concerning Middle-earth warfare, including this battle. I don't see papers about Harry Potter. Will 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Four books and a journal paper, not made by the author's relatives. One is The Atlas of Middle-earth. How does one define "literary franchise"? The History series contains neither conventional prequels or sequels; it's rather more like a text corpus of the author's writings with commentary by his literary executor (who happens to be his son). How can it be original research, when the troop sizes, for example, were painstakingly sourced from the book itself? Uthanc 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Fans are incensed that others to not reverence their respective topics; this article and those like it are fancruft. It is fiction folks, it is only in the mind. It is not real, Spock really did not sacrifice himself for all and the Ring never was worn by anyone no matter how many times you felt it encircling your finger in the middle of the night when the pangs for raw fish became all-consuming. Knowledge (XXG) is not a fan site; I suggest that those who are so engrossed by this subject just get a blog; others like you will read your site, and you will all follow the Yellow Brick Road because by golly there really is a Wizard in the Emerald City. --Storm Rider 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've added some info to the article. Now contains some of my links. Uthanc 07:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Provides more than just a plot summary, is a well sourced article and nomination seems to be in violation of WP:POINT Davewild 07:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, and slap nom with a trout for wasting our time with a clear WP:POINT nomination. This battle is a critically important and complex event within the book, itself an acknowledged classic now over half a century old, with various facets of it examined in numerous critical analyses and essays. This is not to say it doesn't contain too much plot detail, as do most articles on fictional subjects with a large and enthusiastic fandom, or that the critical response section shouldn't be expanded at the plot's expense, but that's no reason to delete it. Nom can comfort himself that if in 50 years' time his favorite series is still as well-regarded as it is today, he will be perfectly justified in re-adding that opus whose deletion has so aggrieved him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep per the reliable sources found by Uthanc. Also note that the nominator is trying to make a WP:POINT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite - this and many other articles on fictional topics do need rewriting to avoid an excessively in-universe style and to focus more on the real-world points, but there is most definitely enough material and potential material about this topic for an article. ie. Rewrite, do not delete. It would make an interesting discussion to contrast an article on this battle with the "Second Battle of Hogwarts" article mentioned in the nomination. The LotR battle has had over 50 years to accrue mentions in papers and real-world references. The Hogwarts (Harry Potter) one has had, by my calculation, only about 8 days, so the available material would only be a stub and should be merged to the book article. Carcharoth 10:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence. Has been covered extensively in multiple independent works. Indeed, the choice of this particular article for this exercise in extreme WP:POINTism only further demonstrates how notable it is... and that the nominator knew it. The argument presented here is analogous to, 'if my article on a human being is not notable then ALL humans are not notable - I expect 'fair' enforcement'. It's nonsensical on its face. AfD does not exist for people to engage in some sort of 'Potter vs Tolkien' vendetta. It's bad faith and counterproductive for all concerned. --CBD 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Probably hasn't been studied as much as others such as Beowulf vs. Grendel, or Achilles vs. Hector, but it's still very heavily studied. Nyttend 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I was thinking of the modern concept of fiction as opposed to ancient myth... and pitched battles rather than one on one encounters. It could certainly be said that the largely fictional description of the fall of Troy in the Iliad has been more studied than Tolkien's work... but that was an actual historical event and even the, clearly to us, fictionalized account of it was, unlike the fiction I referred to, intended to be taken (and indeed, previously WAS taken) as a factual history. It may be safe to assume that there was never a man who was invulnerable to all harm except at his heel... but can anyone really claim that it is impossible that a man named Achilles once fought a man named Hector? Or that their story was not based on some actual event? There was a Troy. It was destroyed. The description of that destruction may not be wholly accurate, but it isn't precisely 'fiction' either. --CBD 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Likewise, even if Beowulf is an entirely fictional character rather than a fictionalized historical character, his legend is built around historical people, battles and events. But the comparison isn't apt anyway. Battles are not the same as single combat even in the context of a war. How many fictional wars are there in old myths. Most of the ones I can think of, where humans and not gods were the combatants, are based on historical events. Certainly, no battle from modern fiction as been as thoroughly analyzed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep per all the well-formed arguments above. Absurd nomination that screams of WP:POINT for an article that is both well-written and well-referenced. CBD puts it perfectly: " Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence". J.R.R. Tolkien's work is on the level of modern mythology. It is a historical, mythological and linguistic world of unsurpassed detail and scholarly acheivement with many sources of secondary analysis beyond even the voluminous work of Christopher Tolkien. This battle is one of its central elements. It certainly deserves and article of its own. IronGargoyle 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite per Carcharoth. I've trimmed the phrasing a little and added a rudimentary "critical response" section, which should really be expanded. Also, "keep and rewrite" goes for all Tolkien battles; those who can should add like sections to the other battles as well. Uthanc 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, the battle has been analysed, discussed, and parodied. One of the most important plot elements in The Lord of the Rings and one of the best known battles in literature and film. 96T 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    And yet the article links to no other articles substantiating notability other than one CNN article. The article, and something that has not yet been contested, is one giant extended plot summary written in such an esoteric manner that any layman reader wanting to know more about the battle (perhaps pushed by seeing the constant references to the battle all around him?) would have nary an idea what is going on. Clearly, the article's explanation in the War of the Ring entry would remedy the prodigious extended summary flaw of this article. Auror 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I mentioned two books. I only own the Atlas, so the other book needs more elaboration. Here's another: Will add it later, or perhaps someone else will (at school now, heh). The "plottiness" of the article is acknowledged and can be remedied per Csernica and Carcharoth. Uthanc 03:12, 31 July 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, author request. Pascal.Tesson 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The present reference doesn't seem to exist, if it's a book. It's not on Amazon.com nor in the Library of Congress database. (Previous references have been shown to be incorrect.) Importance not specified (and {{importance}} tag removed without serious comment). Even if the reference did exist, was a WP:RS, and the importance was specified, it could be merged into a section of formal grammar or formal language. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep
    • Motivated by vendetta by proposers' own admission.
    "you leave me no choice" --A.R. edit summary
    • Proposer admits he does not understand the subject matter.
    ""I don't know much about philosophical logic" (A.R. talk page.)
    • I wake up yesterday and find A.R. has either reverted or negatively tagged four (4) of my edits.
    • Admits that he is "Perhaps" giving off an "asshole vibe." (A.R. talk page.)

    Like I said, I don't play games on Knowledge (XXG). FS is a legitimate formal language.

    The existence of language FS informs us about the nature of concepts such as "theorem," "lemma," "proof," scores of others .... and everything in mathematics.

    ...which explains the hard on this guy has. There is a big entrenchment going on with the mathematical logic people in response to the creation of WikiProject Logic and its "philosophical" logic of which they have no care (or by their own admission, any notion).

    This guy is either a genuine asshole or he is aloof and unaware that he is being an asshole (in which case I sympathize and feel somewhat forgiving). Be well all.

    Gregbard 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment. "You leave me no choice" is in reference to your removal of the {{importance}} tag without actually asserting importance. As for your explanation here of the importance, if that were in the article and sourced, it would tend to indicate importance. It still probably shouldn't be under this name, as there are undoubtably a number of more notable logical systems called "FS", but that should wait until we (as a group) reach a decision as to whether the article should exist at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. The provided reference does not exist. Fails WP:V unless proper references are provided. --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete with extreme prejudice. The author seems to having fun at the expense of wikipedia pushing tolerance to limits. See his talk page. `'Míkka 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Fake references on both FS and PG, after multiple users pointed it out, author still ignored them. Author should be reprimanded for bad faith. - Cyborg Ninja 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This is the 2nd page I have seen this new user create some havoc with within the last three days. He claims to have the book in front of him, but no one else can find it. It is this kind of editing that can throw wiki into a mess- false refferencing. Sethie 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong delete and extreme prejudice against the author (creating nonsense articles, fabricating references, personal attacks, etc). /Blaxthos 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete This "article" is basically just a revision of a message on this talk page. Fails WP:NOTE and violates WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCBryant (talk • contribs)
    • Delete. per all of the above. In addition, I did a Google search and confirmed the book is not found by Google. --Parzival418 Hello 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment All the reasons for deleting FS are all about the person who created the page, not the content. You guys have your corner wrapped up, I guess you don't have to work or play nice with anyone if you don't want to. As long as we can all see how it is (and everybody can), history will be the judge. I think making my point, and explaining it repeatedly with every bit of evidence that you guys do not understand the meaning of it, is probably what led to my frustration. I hope you guys are proud of your accomplishment. It isn't helping the quality of wikipedia AT ALL, just your egos. A vote like this brings WP:FAIL into sharp relief. Gregbard 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Questions. Can you or will you answer any of these few questions?:
    • If the book exists, why is Google not able to find it?
    Not every book is in Google.
    • Where can the book be found, precisely?
    Since it was a textbook, I got it at the Associated Students bookstore at CSUC .
    • If the topic exists and is in any way notable, why is Google not able to find any pages discussing it?
    First of all abuse of the notability criterion is destroying the intellectual integrity of the Knowledge (XXG). There are clearly reasonable cases and clearly unreasonable cases. I think the last paragraph alone justifies this concept.
    • At which university is this theory or system under discussion?
    Same as above, I can't really speak for the rest of the world, but some people feel they can?!
    • What are the names of the professors or researchers who are discussing it?
    Dr. Richard Parker. Author of a bestselling logic text. However, I guess that's not good enough?
    Thanks. --Parzival418 Hello 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Be well, thanks for the interest.Gregbard 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Dr. Richard Parker. Author of a bestselling logic text. However, I guess that's not good enough? -- well, if he actually is the author of a bestselling logic text, that would certainly be helpful in establishing WP:Notability and WP:V. But when I enter a Google search term of that name, "Dr. Richard Parker" I see several professors and medical doctors, but none are in logic or math or philosophy related subjects. When I enter the word "logic" along with his name, Google shows only one page of results, none of them even close to this topic. While Google may not have every book, it seems highly unlikely that if he is the author of a bestselling text, his name would not appear somewhere on some web page along with the name of his book, or with the word "logic", the subject area of his book. Considering that others have not been able to find the book or the author in the Library of Congress or other universities, it's hard to consider this reference as reliable. That's not " abuse of the notability criterion " - it's pretty much just common sense. How can we trust a reference that seems to be unknown to the world at large? No offense intended, I'm just addressing the point about the reference. --Parzival418 Hello 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    The "best-selling book" Greg is referring to is "Critical Thinking" by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker. (At least two of the Amazon.com reviews state it isn't a logic book, but there is room for debate.) It appears to have been published in at least 9 distinct editions, so it probably qualifies as a best-seller by textbook standards. Of course, my late mother's text is a Canadian best-seller by logic standards, selling over 500 copies.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying that. Now I see it. For reference, here are a couple ISBN numbers from Google books: ISBN 007312625X, ISBN 0874847664, ISBN 0072818816. But this book is clearly described in several places as a philosophy text, not a logic text. Does this book directly support the content of the article, or is it's value as a reference mainly to establish that the author is a notable writer? --Parzival418 Hello 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well no, not really.
    has reference. not or.Gregbard 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a fine example of a formal system. We do not, however, have independent articles on examples unless those examples are themselves notable, i.e., discussed by multiple published reliable sources. In this case, the author of the article has yet to provide a single example of a published reference that discusses this formal system that anyone else can find (the claimed reference is not in the comprehensive university library where I work nor in the Library of Congress catalog, and no ISBN seems to be forthcoming). Moreover, I see no reason why this formal system would be any more or less remarkable than any other simple formal system - it is the type of toy system that is used as an example in a textbook, not a system that would generate significant research interest. Therefore I think that even if one author discusses this system as an example, it is still not adequately notable for an independent article. I would favor merging this into the article on formal systems, although some of the claims at the very end need to be explained and sourced, or removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your conciliatory tone. I would be humbled and honored if the group would look at the value and place for FS in Knowledge (XXG) beyond its obnoxious contributor. Please allow either FS or some other "notable" formal system that demonstrates the same properties to be integrated into the appropriate place. Be well, Gregbard 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    You have claimed that this formal system demonstrates some distinction in the meanings of the terms proof and derivation, but that distinction seems unsupported in practice in mathematical logic and unsupported in the logic texts I have seen. If there are a large group of people who do maintain the distinction, surely one of them has described it in a paper or textbook. It is true that this is an example of a formal system that does not model any mathematical phenomenon, but beyond that it does not appear to have a great deal of significance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. The author of the book is on the faculty of the philosophy department at the school where Gregbard says he bought the book. Even the man's own bio only mentions Critical Thinking, not Introduction to Symbolic Logic. It's likely self-published; naming the publisher "Sinful Enterprises" seems consistent with such of the author's sense of humor as can be gleaned from his bio page. Considering it seems to exist nowhere else, it's probably the only book in which this formal system is set out. It is, no doubt, intended as a pedagogical example only and is not set out as a formal system with any wider application. Such an example in an introductory textbook used at only a single school -- a school noted far more for its party atmosphere than its academics -- isn't what we ordinarily think of as "notable". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Cheap shot. Irrelevant. You don't really know anything about the intellectual integrity of the school at all do you? Gregbard 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Gregbard, I don't know why you have such a powerful emotional stake in this article, but you really need to let it go. As Arthur said , it's not a cheap shot at all. When I was in school I used at least one textbook that the professor had published himself: it was perfectly suitable for the course. That doesn't mean I write an article about one of the examples in it, no matter how useful that example may have been for conveying the ideas being taught, unless that example became widely known and imitated.
    As for the "intellectual integrity of the school", the fact that CSUC isn't known as a center of philosophical thought is certainly relevant, and not at all cheap. I'm sure a dedicated student can receive as good an education there as anywhere else in the CSU system, but its reputation is well-known. My parish's rector is actually an alumnus (he of course did not receive his theological education there, only his undergraduate degree) and I merely echo his sentiment. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Um, I wouldn't look to a parish rector for an objective look at a "party school." I certainly wouldn't echo anything he said either. My goodness. Think for yourself. This is all just propaganda and your rector just buys into it. Chico State has a wonderful program in philosophy. It is the only CSU of the 23 that has a program in teaching logic and critical thinking. We party hard here, but we work hard too. That is the nature of a dynamic intellectual environment. You ought to try it. Gregbard 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Why is implying, or even stating, that a professor's textbook for his course is self-published, impune the integrity of the school. (The included clause is a cheap shot, but doesn't significantly affect the rest of the comment.) To phrase it in a way which doesn't insult anyone, Richard Feynmann's self-published course notes would also not be usable in an article unless others in the field referred to them, even if nicely bound, and he wrote QED Press as the publisher. (Although they probably would have been published on DVD by now by CalTech, but he's been dead a number of years.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Trivial formal system; single difficult-to-verify source does not establish notability. Gandalf61 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Because everyone else was. :( - J.
    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 — Caknuck 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Notability concerns, has no mainspace articles linking to it. The sunder king 14:30, 28 July 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 Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442 MessedRocker (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Apparently a photographer, but there's no assertion of notability. (Well, he was married and had kids, but this is of course true for billions of people and anyway WP isn't a genealogical database.) Googling brings up Knowledge (XXG), Knowledge (XXG) scrapes, genealogical stuff, and merely the most minor of references. Prodded on 19 July; prod removed (with an indignant edit summary) three days later. -- Hoary 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • I have added references and an external link to this article. Yes, he is not very significant except he was married to a member of the royal family which does make him quite important; if you're into that sort of thing. Best to keep him as I think he will only be added again anyway. It's actually quite interesting to see what he really photographs from the links. Do not delete. SuzanneKn 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment but the evidence presented so far is the most humdrum commercial photography. Where are the books or solo exhibitions? -- Hoary 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Comment Interesting. Paul Mowatt is the former husband of a member of the British Royal family and father of the 38th and 39th in line to the British throne, which is not quite true for billions of people. The genealogy of the Royal family is of legitimate encyclopedic interest too. However, he does not appear to be notable in his own right. --Malcolmxl5 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As I understand it, being 38th and 39th in line means squat unless/until the first 37 are wiped out. Since the first 37 are likely to be rather widely spaced apart (grouse-hunting for the oldsters, Ibiza for the kids, etc etc), it would take quite a calamity -- Hollywood-style monster asteroid? -- for them all to be blown away. Such a calamity, indeed, that I think even the staunchest of monarchists would have more pressing things on their mind than the question of whose profile would appear on the next set of coins. -- Hoary 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Marina Ogilvy (which contains most information here but lacks the citations). --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep or Merge He's notable because he married a royal, and he'll be mentioned for that fact alone in history books and news stories for the rest of his life, and at his death, and for long after that. Whether you agree with royality or not, he has his 100% stamp of notability assured for life and death. The question is, should it be redirected to the royal he married per Dhartung or not? I'm not sure it matters. He was fairly well known as a fashion photographer, but without checking back issues of W, I couldn't know his status today. In addition to which, if it is deleted it will merely be added back again and again, as he is mentioned every time he or his daughter, a good friend of Princess Beatrice's, attends a party, so people will look, see him missing, then add him in, without a proper article, and this discussion will go on and on without resolution. So, let's not nominate for deletion, now, but decide whether a redirect is appropriate. KP Botany 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'm puzzled. Both your comment above and the article as it now stands (as last revised by you, I think) say that Mowatt's major claim to fame is that of having married a royal. But that particular royal seems pretty minor: I'd never heard of her, and her own WP article says little more than that she was born, got married, had babies, and is now #37. ¶ Mentioned for that fact alone in history books What kind of history book would this be? The history books with which I'm familiar don't mention people in line to the throne (or their husbands or dads) unless perhaps they were thought to have a sporting chance of actually becoming the monarch. ¶ . . . and news stories  . . The British paper with the best web search archive that I know of is the Guardian; its total number of hits for Paul Mowatt is zero (0). ¶ if it is deleted it will merely be added back again and again, as he is mentioned every time he or his daughter, a good friend of Princess Beatrice's, attends a party: I didn't look up his daughter (and offhand don't know who Beatrice might be), but since the Guardian doesn't mention Mowatt at all we can quickly infer that it doesn't mention his party-going. (Am I looking in the wrong newspaper?) Also, I hadn't been aware that the probability that an article would be re-created was reason not to delete it. It would be a doddle to redirect the article to that of his ex and then to sprotect the redirect. I suggested deletion instead because (i) Mowatt is being presented on WP as a photographer (see this edit, by 86.144.202.178, who is bt.com as is the Mowatt-concerned 86.144.207.4); (ii) it seems odd, and perhaps insulting for both parties, for an article on one living person to be a redirect to that on their ex; and (iii) I didn't notice anything obviously article-worthy about his ex. -- Hoary 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment That is his major claim to fame as far as I can tell, but for some reason, you didn't mention or find that when you googled him, so I'm going to doubt your Guardian searches also, and the "history books with which you're familiar with." KP Botany 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't ask you to believe me. Instead, feel free to pop on over to the Guardian and type his name in the little search window at the top right; you'll then see for yourself. As for the history books, I can't be bothered to list those that I know, but you're welcome to supply the titles of history books that do describe who was number-thirty-plus in line to the Youkay throne at this or that time during the 20th century. -- Hoary 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh, absolutely, and what a new one for AfD, a pure delight. If my history books prove something that yours don't or vice versa, that's good enough for Knowledge (XXG). Oops, wait, I seem to have missed that one. Seriously, what your collection of history books contains is not relevant. It seems you are intent on deleting, which I don't care much about either way, except for the fact that it will simply be recreated the next time he is mentioned in a history book you don't read, and then this discussion will arise again. I really can't argue against your claims of what your history books say versus claims of what mine say, because it's entirely irrelevant and hinges upon our personal familiarity or not with various history books. However, again, as you don't know who Princess Beatrice is, I'm pretty sure you're not reading history books that have Brittish royalty in them, so again, besides the obvious, it's just not going to happen. I can't find anything about Beatrice in my biology book, either. Although I can find some stuff about her great-great grandmother. KP Botany 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't ask you to believe anything about my (admittedly poor) assortment of history books. I merely ask about the kind of history book that does mention the fact that this or that person is thirty-somethingth in line for the throne, when that person isn't obviously notable in any other way. The British history book that I have closest to hand happens to be K O Morgan, The People's Peace: British History 1945–1989; the QE2 and her mum both appear in the index, as does QE2's sister the photographer's ex; ergo, it does have British royalty in it. "Succession" and "throne" don't appear in the index; I can't think of any other keywords under which I might look. It's probably unfair to look up this kind of royaltycruft in a book that has only about ten pages per year; well, I'm all ears for a better and more comprehensive history. -- Hoary 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment To wax pedantic: Mowatt is only the former son-in-law of a member of the royal family, Princess Alexandra of Kent, a first cousin of the Queen. She and/or her husband declined an earldom on marriage thus her children bear no title even in the peerage and really are not members of the royal family in the strict sense (i.e. people addressed by H.R.H.). This is essentially an entry of no importance outside of monarchist genealogical circles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As I've stated above, he has been listed within WP as a photographer, which is how I came across his article. Somebody describing herself as related to a gallery "in DC" also claimed in my talk page that he was a noteworthy photographer, but didn't respond to my invitation to provide evidence. (This person in/of/from DC uses bt.com and has an interesting contributions list.) -- Hoary 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: In truth, His sole claim to notability was marrying a mixed up kid who had a rather famous first cousin once removed. He also had a mother-in-law who saw straight through him. Being disapproved of by one's mother-in-law does, and having a failed marriage in no way confers notability. Contrary to claims above his wife was not a "Royal" she was in fact just a "miss". Giano 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Please confine yourself to discussing the factual notability of a person, not your opinion of them (or your imaginations of someone else's opinion), as even if true this has no bearing on WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Kindly do not tell me what to say or not to say. I merely demonstrate why the subject is not at all notable. I can assure you nothing is my "imaginations". Giano 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Um, but Giano, there's nothing in the article about anyone seeing straight through or disapproving of anyone else, and anyway it's pretty routine for mums-in-law to see straight through their kids-in-law. (I daresay I'm transparent to my own mum-in-law. No big deal.) ¶ Frankly I don't care who he married, or what caused a divorce: If he's notable as a photographer I'm all for his inclusion, and I await evidence from Caroline of DC (and of bt.com) for his photographic notability. -- Hoary 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    All the article tells me about is his marriage - so I comment on it. Nothing else does it tell me, besides he is photographer - I take pictures of my kids and my wife in her new dress does that make me fashion and portrait photographer? No - it does not. The page is nothingness - delete it. Giano 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, Giano, but you raise a serious problem: I can no longer count the indentation colons. That aside, we do have evidence that he takes photos professionally; and while you may as well for all I know, most of us don't. But of course being a pro photographer in itself doesn't suffice. Well, let's see if this will prompt any revelations. As for his marriage, again, I know nothing of this and don't want to discuss it; but it can hardly have been worse than Armstrong-Jones's first marriage, which doesn't detract from A-J's (not stunning, but significant) achievements as a photographer. Really, I'd like to forget all about PM's wife and kids and be told what he has achieved. -- Hoary 13:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Footnote'. At Knowledge (XXG), non-notable spouses of individuals with entries are often quite fully enough treated, with birth-death dates, in a footnote.--Wetman 07:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Hoary, Giano, Wetman, etc. There's no need for separate entries about one-time spouses of would-be royals. WP:NOT: Knowledge (XXG) is not a genealogical reference book. --Ghirla 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect to FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman. I'm going to overrule consensus on this one, as this seems like a more common sense outcome. This is a conceivable search term, and the character is mentioned in the parent article. — Caknuck 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Notability concerns, no mainspace articles link to this one. The sunder king 14:20, 28 July 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 Avada Kedavra — Caknuck 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    That's Delete to you Mugglepedians. Caknuck 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Harry potter relationships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Beginnings of an unmaintainable list ... let's kill this before it gets out of control. Blueboy96 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Believe me, I wanted to slap a speedy tag on it ... but I couldn't find a valid CSD to use. Only reason I didn't prod it was because I figured that if I brought it here, we'd see snow in July. Blueboy96 14:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Only took 6 minutes to get nominated for AfD, too! - Cyborg Ninja 14:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    :::I've tagged it for speedy because the list is incomplete and there is virtually little context.--JForget 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I would've tagged this with Nonsense... --L
    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 but redirect to practically identical article KARA. The capitalised version appears to be the standard name for the group.ELIMINATORJR 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Non notable music group from Korea. I can't confirm notability via google. I don't think the article is salvagable. Wikidudeman 13:44, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    A Collection of Michael Jackson's Oldies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Possible hoax page. Google search for verbatim text of album title returned barely 100 hits. Of those, most seemed to be references related to wikipedia or other wikis with no verifiable sources. No external links or sources cited in article. Doesn't appear to be an actual album. Entoaggie09 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment Needs reference, but it's highly possible it does in fact exist. It's old and is unlikely to appear on a Google search. Be wary of deleting. Did you ask the author to verify his sources before putting this on AfD? - Cyborg Ninja 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    In the process of doing that, although the author has had no contributions since April of this year. And yeah, it could exist, but I haven't found any evidnce that it does. --Entoaggie09 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I looked back and noticed the author added a Beatles cover album picture for it. Seems highly unlikely he ever saw the album in his life. No need to give him the benefit of the doubt now. WP:RS. - Cyborg Ninja 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wow. I totally didn't notice the Beatles album cover. --Entoaggie09 14:06, 28 July 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 — Caknuck 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Diocesan School For Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not assert it's notability and is very POV. Wikidudeman 13:28, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Google search for Columbia AND language with the phrase 'Orange entertainement' produces 9 results, most of which are irrelevant, one is a CV. There is no evidence I can find of independent sources to suggest that this is in any way a notable 'academy'. Emeraude 12:22, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

    List of 'Golden Balls' values (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A lot of this is original research. We are told there is 'statistical evidence' but there is no link to anywhere to suggest that there is statistical evidence. I have tried to find sources online but failed for some research on this that I could verify it with, alas there is none. Also the paragraph on trying to deduce which balls exist based on patterns could also be original reserach.

    I have taken the information presented (balls that already appear) and merged it to the main article. As such, there is no real information to keep/improve to make this article any better. Hydrostatics 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete I'm glad someone has finally decided to merge the data into the main article. I never personally saw a reason for this information to be held within its own article, and Hydrostatics is correct in that there is Original Research in there not easily backed up by external sources. Any necessary information has been added to the main article and this no longer serves a purpose. Bungle44 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete OR/Unreferenced/Unencyclopaedic. /Blaxthos 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Much too "fine-grained" information for an encyclopedia article, verges on being a reference guide for playing. Golden balls: anywhere between £10 and £75,000. Brass balls: priceless. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No source for this information, so I presume that someone has actually sat and watched all episodes and noted the values in the balls! If so, this is OR from a really sad person. Emeraude 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure Much of the article is my own research based on compiling the ball values each show in a spreadsheet, and which I intend to post on my website in a couple of weeks (when this series of the show ends) along with the accompanying information including the statistical analysis. Yes, I'm a really sad person ;) I've locally saved a copy of the last version of the page so I don't need to redo anything when I post it myself. One thing to note is that updating the replacement merged article is that the table isn't easy to update (see today's addition) unless there is some Knowledge (XXG) feature I am unaware of. PrinceGaz 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand your view will be bias towards keeping it and that you will obviously defend against deletion arguements, but surely even if you did input the maxiumum amount of information which would be relavant (however sad that may be), it still would not warrant its own article. The size of the article, at most, would easily suffice as a reasonably sized section within the main article. Bungle44 10:51, 31 July 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. Claims of notability uncontested since addition of new sources. El_C 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Creation Science Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Previously nominated for speedy deletion as spam/due to insufficient notability. Listed for cleanup since December 2005. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • *Weak keep, for now. It's not spam, though the second link may be superfluous. Further information as to (un)notabilty would be helpful. Emeraude 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    *Delete Not notable, no references. - Cyborg Ninja 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep These people may be a bunch of loonies, but they certainly exist and have influence. Google provides over 12,000 hits, mostly to CSA organisations in Canada, Australia and the US, which, of course, we would not accept as reliable sources. But, if you want independent evidence of notability, how about references in The Boston Globe 1 May 2005 , Washington Post 12 August 1999 , MSNBC 8 Nov 2005 and, most importantly, New Scientist 22 April 2000 (subscription needed for full access, but republished at ). I'm sure there are others, but I've had enough of following creationist trails. Emeraude 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Notable from resources provided by Emeraude above. - 76.110.238.95 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as now sourced. DGG (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as currently sourced. I'm from the midwest and have actually heard of this group as well... Not that that means a whole lot but I would say its notable. --Entoaggie09 20:33, 29 July 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. —Kurykh 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Breakin' Dishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Another article which has no source verifying that this will be a future single. I couldn't find any reliable source in the internet that confirms it. No other useful content in the article currently, so I think this should be deleted. RaNdOm26 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, I see it. I think I should vote on that one too! RaNdOm26 12:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - until confirmation. Onnaghar (Talk) 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete These future single articles really need to be killed. There is no evidence that reliable third-party sources have covered it, and that it exists and will be a single does not make it notable. 17Drew 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Break... I mean delete as crystal ballery. "Rihanna has confirmed that "Breakin' Dishes" is to be her fifth single off " — where did she say this? When? There isn't a source cited. I also have issue with the misuse of the term confirmed in these to-be-released single and album articles — if something is confirmed, there must have been an initial announcement about it, but in these articles there's usually no indication of one; they just erroneously leap straight past any initial announcement (if one existed) to confirmed. Extraordinary Machine 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Good Girl Gone Bad. The argument to keep this article is the same argument used for the Hate That I Love You (song) article, and it was just as silly there as it is here. lone_twin 07:41, 30 July 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

    List of long-distance mileage signs in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Interesting, yes, but essentially trivia. Besides, it's arbitrary: Who decides what should be included on the list and what not?—Scott5114↗ 09:02, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    per WP:BAND, Iron Maiden tribute band, "one of the best" in northern Italy (but not the best?) 650l2520 08:21, 28 July 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 — Caknuck 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Term used during a lecture to describe 3 chocolate manufacturers. 650l2520 08:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete: neologism, with no signs of notability (lack of independent reliable sources). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Definitely no need for an article here; non-notable and neo as above. – Alex43223 09:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: I hope that this article an be retained and developed. John Sentamu is a notable live WP article and John of York frequently refers to The Chocolate Trinity in talks. There are articles on the three Quaker philanthopists referred to and significant academic and popular studies of the influence of them and their relations. Two of the Brands they gave their names to are still household worlds. The confectionery industry is a major part of the food sector of the Market. The charitable ventures that they founded are still in action and doing valued work. It is to be expected that the Quaker wikiproject will develop further links to this article in due course.=== Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Vernon, you know I'd love to agree with you, and I'd love it if the subject of this article were suitable, but I'm not sure that it is. I could only support its inclusion if it were in more widespread, documented use. Is there potential to transwiki? I don't know what inclusion criteria wiktionary uses. SamBC 13:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - non-notable neologism. Oli Filth 10:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete 'The Chocolate Trinity' (and 'The Trinity of Chocolate') is a phrase used by John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, in a lecture in Sept 2006 when speaking of Cadbury, Rowntree and Fry. The lecture itself is not about so called 'The Chocolate Trinity'. The phrase is not widely used in this context and even on the Diocese of York website only appears in one article, a transcription of the lecture. It is a neologism, a newly coined phrase, it is not widely used and it does not have significant coverage. Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry and Sentamu are notable people in their own right and of course have their own articles. The phrase and context would be best located in these articles imo. --Malcolmxl5 12:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per Oli Filth - Cyborg Ninja 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete doesn't meet any of the requirements for notability (not even close). It's an interesting phrase, and could be mentioned in the relevant articles (Sentamu, Cadbury, Rowntree, Fry, possibly Quaker history, etc), but can't justify an article on its own. As a member of the Quaker wikiproject, I would rather spend my limited time on the many Quaker-related articles that badly need improvement, rather than waste my time trying to rescue this one. --NSH001 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete as neologism Paul Carpenter 07:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The sense of the Meeting is delete. Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Author can mention the information in an article about the history of chocolate manufacturing in Britain, if there is one; and on Knowledge (XXG), there probably is one. Chocolate Trinity sounds like a horrible idea for an alternative to the Chocolate Easter bunny Mandsford 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. Appears to be a hoax. El_C 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    The Battle of Tauntly Flats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No sources, zero Ghits. Is that little known, a hoax, a mis-spelling? 650l2520 07:59, 28 July 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. FT2 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    This is a much-debated AFD about 3 related articles. In summary:

    • Proposed grounds to keep are: encyclopedic summary of series info, list of well referenced verifiable episodes (user:DGG, user:DHowell); real world value, crossref to prior and other AFD, extent of work put in by editors, validty of lists (user:Paxomen).
    • Proposed grounds to delete (including merge, transwiki etc) are: original synthesis (nom), WP:NOT a place for fan projects of this kind (nom), reference to other AFDs (nom), lack of "real world" sources (user:Jay32183), plot summary (user:Corpx), only summaries related to "real world" matters such as publisher or medium are appropriate (user:A_Man_In_Black, the nominator), duplicates footnote navigation info anyway (user:Jeff-El), WP:OR since this is essentially not according to a reliable sources but based on fans working, advancing a position, self-ref since sourced to authors own analysis, misuse of sources, and breach of Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (AMIB again).
    • Rebuttals of OR include that all dates in the "buffyverse " are sourced, often from the actual publications themselves (user:Paxomen), and

    As a matter of policy, AFD decisions are not decided for either side, by reference to other article decisions, or past AFDs (WP:DP). Nor is "a lot of work" a valid argument (WP:EFFORT), or that it's useful (WP:USEFUL) - both of these are forms of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (However, note, the suggestion implied that fiction articles cannot include other than "real-world" organization is not correct per policy either.) The crux of the delete case is a concern that the article is a synthesis of editor's views or advancing such a synthesis, not based upon reference to reliable sources, and breaches fiction article guidelines. The crux of the keep debate is that a list of episodes in an in-universe timeline is encyclopedic and notable, and useful to fans and non-fans alike in the context of the series, and that the cites are verifiable.

    I concur with DGG and DHowell that such a timeline could be encyclopedic or useful. It is a well defined, well presented list, doubtless useful, and many lists are to be found in Knowledge (XXG). However AFD is decided based upon policy related points arising, and there are strong policy related points raised by the nominator and others opining "delete" that are not rebutted by evidence to the contrary in this debate. The main problem seems to be with WP:OR - although information on individual records is sourced and verifiable, the chronology as a whole is not. The clearest example of this is, that some items are sourced from book intros, but others just assume that broadcast date is buffyverse date, or use such measures of time and date as the editors see fit to apply. this is the classic definition of WP:OR, although I have no question it is in good faith, it's still a synthesis. To not be OR, the actual list and chronology would need a reliable source, and this doesn't seem to be the case. (But:- It's also questionable whether a reliably sourced "this is what fans think" would be enough, unless there was a published, agreed chronology, in which case Knowledge (XXG) is not a republisher of fan-info and that list would be better reflected by an in-article link anyhow).

    (I haven't addressed WP:WAF above, since the matter seems to turn on WP:OR and WP:RS. Separate problems with WP:WAF are that 1/ in-universe views are useful, but are only one viewpoint, and on their own are discouraged, and 2/ plot synopses as a historical account are specifically mentioned -- although appropriate encyclopedic use of an in-universe view is not always forbidden. But ultimately, WP:WAF is a style guideline. WP:OR is policy and WP:RS relates to verifiability which is also policy.)

    It's clear much good faith and hard work has gone into this. But unless someone on review can demonstrate 1/ reliable sources (and by that I think I mean, independent reliable sources, not just the views of a number of fans), 2/ related to the chronology as a whole, 3/ which are notable and 4/ capable of more than just re-hashing, and which are 5/ appropriate to mirror as an encyclopedia article, then I think the delete views are well endorsed by policy, and this article unfortunately fails to meet requirements. I have userified the text prior to deletion, in case it can be useful that way. Details posted at User_talk:Paxomen.

    FT2 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Also included are:

    This is an original synthesis of the stories of the various Buffy and Buffy-related stories into a form organized in an irrevocably in-universe way.

    It's largely unsourced, in both the verification sense (there's little sense where any of the claims made here are coming from, and many of them appear to be completely unsourceable except for fan forums) and the notability sense (none of the cited sources are at all concerned with a timeline). Instead, it seems to be the original synthesis of fans, teasing clues or cues out of many disparate sources, primarily personal observation of the subject. Nowhere can this problem be better seen than in Image:Buffyverse Chronology.jpg, the lead image for this page, which is apparently spliced together by fans from various, unspecified images.

    In the previous AFD (which arrived at no consensus), it was argued that this is a useful navigation tool. It might be on a Buffyverse fan project, but Knowledge (XXG) handles fictional subjects by primarily regarding their role in the real world, while this timeline is structured in an in-universe way. It's also a terrible navigation tool for the way the articles are actually organized; some entries link to nothing, while there are dozens of links to some articles (like Tales of the Slayer).

    Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here. (This isn't even counting the timelines that were just made up on the spot by their author(s).) A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

    It is not based on vague plot interpretations or fan sites. See the Notes and references section. -- Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    In my view it is not a plot summary. It is a list which includes brief plot summaries. I agree that the article must be improved by demonstrating real world context more effectively. -- Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Transwiki is not a good resolution for AfD. Generally it is best to avoid using other wikis as links on Knowledge (XXG) articles since other Wikis may not have the same rules on verfiability, neutrality.. Also we should improve articles rather than get rid of them by shifting them elsewhere. -- Paxomen 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep summaries of the content of major cultural artifacts are encyclopedic. they are not just for fans. In fact, I think they are not primarily for fans, but for ordinary users who do not know the material very well, and are trying to form an idea of the content of the series. A timeline is appropriate, considering the nature of the series. If some aspects are done poorly or some articles or sections are missing, that's an argument to improvement, not deletion. Otherstuffhasbeen deleted is no more of an argument than otherjunkexists: each article is to be judged individually. construction of an image for navigation is no more OR than construction of an original map, as is present in thousands of articles. WP is not constructed according to some theoretical ideal--it is an encyclopedia meant to be used. DGG (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      It may be encyclopedic, it may not. I don't know, and I'm not inclined to argue about it. It's a purely subjective argument about what is useful or best or right or good.
      However, this encyclopedia doesn't summarize fictional stories except as context for real-world content, something that this timeline is completely lacking. This isn't a matter of this timeline being done poorly. It's a matter of this timeline doing something not in line with the goals of this project: specifically, it's an original synthesis of plot summary.
      Other articles with the same problems being deleted illustrates the fact that Knowledge (XXG) has historically not made a practice of keeping timelines that are similarly original syntheses of plot summary. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't illustrate that there's some consensus on Knowledge (XXG)'s standards, but OTHERSTUFFHADACONSENSUSTOKEEPINAFD(ANDNOTJUSTNOCONSENSUS) would be a good argument to keep, if you could illustrate how it it was relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - For several reasons:
    • Real world context - This is a subjective matter and many would disagree with this opinion - but IMHO there is a very obvious real-world context: These stories are available in the real world, they sit in shops, on people's book shelves.. people who follow them may appreciate having somewhere to find out what order to do so. Deleting this page will only make Knowledge (XXG) less useful to many people. However I agree that the page could benefit from more real-world context.
    • The previous debate - Whilst the result of the previous debate was ruled as "No consensus" by Quarl at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology. In actual fact if I count right there is 17 keeps (including several "Strong keeps"), and only 8 delete votes, and some people didn't vote instead just commenting, but most comments are supportive of keeping. I know that AfD is not supposed to be simply a vote-count (though in my experience a vote count has often determined the fate of the page) but even reading across the previous debate, it seems that there well reasoned arguments made as to be why the page should be kept as opposed to being deleted, and by wikipedians who had actually given some time to looking at gaining an understanding of the article. The main argument for deletion in the previous debate was that the article was not sourced and could therefore be original research. Since then notes and references have been introduced, to show that it is not based on original research but primarily on secondary sources.
    • It's a list - This is essentially a list, and perhaps needs to be renamed something like "List of Buffy/Angel stories". It does aid navigation (by complimenting other navigation options), and there is basis for keeping and improving it rather than deleting. If this page is removed it will only make it far more difficult to navigate articles relating to Buffy and Angel.
    • It's so much work - Are people really comfortable deleting so much hard work without a strong basis - the article is verified, it is not based on original research (see the Notes and references section), and it is written from a neutral Point of View. It also represents the work of many many wikipedians over the period of a whole year. I suspect that many people who are voting to delete the list are biased against it because they are not interested in the subject matter (though they likely would not admit that in this forum).
    • An image is not a reason for deletion??? - If there is an argument for the removal/deletion of the image, the image can be simply removed (in fact I just took if off the page), this is not a reason for deleting an article.
    • Other AfD results for other articles are not relevent. I noticed the nomination says "Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past." That is not relevent. This page needs to be properly looked at on its own terms, and yes that means voters should at least have a look at the article and justify their vote.
    • My proposal for a compromise instead of deletion - If neccessary I could reluctantly accept removal of Buffyverse chronology (canon only), we could then wittle down the list to a single page, rename it the more appropriate title of "List of Buffy/Angel stories." We could then over time more effectively demonstrate real world context (e.g. a good start would be a more effective introduction, and real-world release dates for each episode/novel/comic). I have already removed the image which A Man In Bl♟ck has pointed out may not be appropriate. - Paxomen 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that the works these stories appear in exist in the real world isn't real-world content; this only talks about the events in the stories, not once making mention of conception, fan reception, critical reception, or any sort of other real-world content. WP:WAF has more on this.
    The number of votes from last time doesn't really enter into it. This is still all plot summary, and still original research, and still in-universe. I made a point of specifically answering the arguments advanced for keep in the last AFD, except for the "I like it" or "Buffy fans need this" arguments.
    I acknowledge that it was a lot of work to make this timeline. I'm sure it would fit very nicely onto a Buffy fan wiki. However, here, it does not respect Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for handling fictional material, and by its nature cannot be cleaned up to meet these standards. It is original research, though; look at how many of those notes and references are blog or forum posts, fansites, or just the works themselves.
    The image is a microcosm of this article's problems. It's a combination of vaguely sourced material, in a way atypical for Knowledge (XXG), into a whole better suited for a fansite than an encyclopedia.
    An appropriate list of Buffy/Angel stories would be arranged in a real-world way (like, say, by publisher or medium or by real world chronology), would ditch nearly all of the in-universe material, and, most critically, benefits in no way from this list with dozens of redundant links, go-nowhere non-linked entries, and gobs of speculation.
    There's no reason this couldn't be transwikied, or userfied to use the tiny kernal of real-world info (such-and-such story exists), but this in-universe arrangment of plot summary and original synthesis needs to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    The people including myself who worked on the article worked on it so that it could be on Knowledge (XXG) and useful to people interested in the topic, not so that it could be seen by one fan every month on a Buffy wiki. Is no one willing to give a chance to improving the page, adding more real world context is perfectly possible. -- Paxomen 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter that people did a lot of work, being useful and interesting isn't enough, and it isn't enough to say work can be done or sources are out there. When you make a Knowledge (XXG) article, get the sources first and make sure it complies with WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about a page getting deleted. Jay32183 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, they have every right to complain about it being deleted after all the work they put into it, but I'd be happy to preserve this work by moving this to a project where it does meet the local standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete because I don't really see anything this article adds that the much-smaller templates appearing at the end of episode pages do not provide. I particularly don't see the need for the plot summaries, as they're more than adequately covered elsewhere. A note on the messageboard/blog sources though: as the article is now, I only see two of them, and they were both published by the writers of the works in question, so I don't see why they wouldn't be considered appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-El (talk • contribs)
    • Keep This is article is neither original research nor a plot summary. It is a list of episodes (note that episode titles are real-world information, not in-universe information) with short plot descriptions, ordered by their occurrence in the fictional universe's timeline. It is well-referenced and verifiable, and is an encylcopedic treatment of one aspect of an academic field of study (see Buffy studies). The original research policy does not prohibit all synthesis of published material (if it did, just about every Knowledge (XXG) article would be in violation). It prohibits "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Exactly what position is being advanced by ordering the episodes in-universe chronological order? To say that policy prohibits this chronology would be like saying that policy prohibits one from listing the Star Wars movies in order I,II,III,IV,V,VI; that to avoid "in-universe perspective" we may only list them in order IV,V,VI,I,II,III. If rules as written do indeed prohibit this highly encyclopedic article, then ignore the rules and fix the broken policy. DHowell 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      ordered by their occurrence in the fictional universe's timeline.
      This is the crux of one of the article's main problems.
      According to whom is this the correct order in the fictional universe's timeline? There's no indication that this wasn't an original synthesis written by fans who examined the article's subject then arranged it based on their opinions. The position being advanced is that this is the correct order for these stories. You mention Buffy studies; okay, where's the commentary on the in-universe timeline?
      The WP:NOT#PLOT (and this is entirely plot summary, arranged in a novel fashion) and WP:WAF (that arrangement is completely in-universe) problems are also present and unresolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      The timeline is correct according to the cited sources, and logical conclusions which can be drawn from them. You say "There's no indication that this wasn't an original synthesis written by fans who examined the article's subject then arranged it based on their opinions." But there's no indication that it is based simply on fan opinions. Paxomen has asserted that the chronological order is supported by the cited sources, and you have given no reason not to assume that this is a correct assertion. If this article is "advancing the position" that its content is correct than it is no different than every other article on Knowledge (XXG). "Advancing a position" in the context of the original research policy means advancing a novel or controversial position that is not supported by cited sources. Do you actually believe that the timeline is incorrect or do you simply think that nothing is allowed on Knowledge (XXG) unless some reliable source has said it in exactly the same way? Is it original research to say 92653 + 58979 = 151632 unless I find a reliable source for that particular sum? It is no more original research to construct a timeline, if reliable sources can be used to determine the proper ordering of stories within that timeline, even if no other source has constructed a complete timeline per se.
      As for WP:NOT#PLOT, this is clearly not a plot summary, but a series of "brief plot summar" (one sentence descriptions!) which "may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article," the larger topic being the ordering of hundreds of separate stories within the Buffyverse timeline. Each story is presented in this chronology as a separate real-world entity (per its episode or book title). Even if we removed the episode titles, it would be a rather poorly written "plot summary", e.g.:
      "Follows the prehistoric first Slayer as she is rejected by her village and instructed to fight alone. Thessily, the current Slayer, must run 300 miles in 3 days to protect an important messenger. Kishi Minomoto is a brave girl born into a warrior clan. A slayer who is trained but is not told her calling. Eliane and her Watcher spend years training together and fall in love. A Slayer operates within a walled medieval town during a period of witch-hunts. The Slayer, Esperanza de la Vega, is a Marrano and this makes her a heretic. A Slayer named White Doe falls into trouble with a local wizard."
      This doesn't look like a plot summary to me; without the context it is just a mismash of story element descriptions. The same arguments apply to why it doesn't violate WP:WAF.
      As to one of your comments below, "Reference #4 is justifying the placement of an unaired pilot into this timeline. Why do we have an unpublished work on this timeline at all?" If you had read the cited reference at all, you would know that it is not an unaired pilot, but a yet-to-be-published novel! And it is the author himself (can you get more reliable than that?) who has stated when this novel will take place in the established timeline. Shall I assume that your investigation of the other cited sources are equally as thorough? DHowell 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      When I wrote that, reference #5 was the LiveJournal of a now-published novel's author, whereas reference #4 was Jeph Loeb commenting on a fansite about a still-unaired animated pilot. In fact, it still is that when when I look right now. I did carefully read each of the references, save for the ones that are themselves fictional stories (well, I didn't read #1, granted, but it isn't being used for any substantive claims).
      Right now, other than for a total of two timeline points on this article with dozens and dozens of such points, none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject. On top of this, this original synthesis is a synthesis of fictional stories into a unified whole, with negligable (if not entirely absent!) real-world context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      Very well, I retract the last paragraph, as I thought you were referring to what was cited as #4 below, not as #4 in the article. Nevertheless, the point still stands, that both #4 and what is now #6 in the article are equally valid published sourced commentary by a producer or an author about their respective unpublished stories' placement within the timeline. What difference does it make how long before publication the statement was made? And really, how can unpublished stories be written about from an in-universe perspective? The mere existence of these entries in the timeline proves this is a real-world analysis of a fictional timeline, not an in-universe analysis of it. As to "none of the claims are sourced to anything but the article authors' analysis of the article subject," even if that is true, what is wrong with that? "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." It's only original research if the analysis serves to support a novel or controversial position, and I just don't see what is so novel or controversial about arranging stories set in the same fictional universe into a fictional timeline, especially when such timeline appears not to be disputed in any meaningful way. DHowell 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      "What difference does it make how long before publication the statement was made?" Things change between first draft and final version, often dramatically.
      Research that consist of examining the article subject and writing an original synthesis on that subject is original research. This isn't examining sources and writing an article; it's examining the subject and writing an article. It's no less original research than an article on the moon sourced to you looking through the telescope in your backyard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not original research - I already outlined my case for keep, but feel that the issue of OR is so important I must directly respond to the nomination. Firstly I would urge anyone voting to have a careful read of Knowledge (XXG):No original research. Then haveing a good look at the Notes and references sectionwhich looks something like:
      1. Ouellette, Jennifer (2006). The Physics of the Buffyverse. Penguin. ISBN 0143038621.
      2. "Spike, Old Times", Forum. Newsarama.Com (August 31, 2005).
      3. "Jeph Loeb Spills News, Not Blood, About Buffy The Animated Series... ", FanBoyPlanet.com (2004)
      4. DeCandido, Keith R.A., "tiny excerpt from The Deathless" KRAD's Inaccurate Guide to Life (August 8, 2006).
      5. Levy, Robert Joseph, "Go Ask Malice", Pocket Books (2006). Includes fictional dated diary entries throughout.
      • Tales of the Slayer prose stories are given dates on the contents page for volumes two and three, and at the start of each story for volumes one to four.
      • Buffy television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
      • Angel television episodes are listed by order of air dates.
      • Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff, ANGEL: Stranger to the Sun, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
      • The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates.
      • Tales of the Slayer prose stories are given dates on the contents page for volumes one, two and three, and at the start of each story for volumes one to four.
      • Many novels and graphic novels feature "Historian notes" on an opening page of the book. For example Mariotte, Jeff, Stranger to the Sun, Pocket Books page iv, "Historian's note: This story takes place in the second half of the second season."
      I can see how numbers 2-4 might appear dubious if not properly looked into, but these are comments given by the writers/producers of these works specifically relating to a timeline placement, and actually are only footnotes to several entries of the list. The most important references are the bullet points. This is not some vague subjective interpretation, it was objectively put together using secondary sources and explicit "Historian notes" which identify can clearly result in a placement on a timeline. Primary sources were occasionally used if necessary but this does not make it 'original research', unless they were subjectively interpreted on Knowledge (XXG) (which they were not) - as I say we used explicit markers in the texts like "Historian notes" or explicit mentions of the date. Many people assume that any use of primary sources is original research. Actually primary sources treated with care can be used without performing "original research", and in this case they were used alongside secondary sources such as guidebooks. -- Paxomen 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      Let's look at what these references are and what they're being used for.
      • The The Physics of the Buffyverse is only being used to explain the origin of the term "Buffyverse". If the book has any commentary on continuity, it isn't being used for that purpose in this article.
      • References #2 and #3 are just the books themselves. The Tales of the Slayers stories are interleaved with other stories freely; does TotS make any mention of these other stories, or are we just assuming they're meant to fit together?
      • Reference #4 is justifying the placement of an unaired pilot into this timeline. Why do we have an unpublished work on this timeline at all? It's the closest thing this has to a reference that backs any of the claims, and it's to back the placement of a work whose placement on this timeline at all is rather baffling.
      • Reference #5 is more reading the book and synthesizing the story.
      • Reference #6 is the LiveJournal of the author of a book, commenting in passing on his book almost a year before it's publication
      • The rest of the references are just "We watched the episodes."
      This is incredibly weak sourcing. The only time anything even approaching a secondary source is used is when the primary source isn't available to analyze and synthesize.
      A key question unanswered in every single one of those "sources": according to whom are the airdates exactly congruous with the in-universe order? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      Are you suggesting that we should not assume that the order the series is presented in is not chronological? Even if there is no hard source for that, it seems a little absurd, though I am a big supporter of proper sourcing in articles. It's a linear television show in which the events of one episode often affect the following episodes, and it's very reasonable to assume that they are in chronological order. If the original airdates are too fuzzy for you, would it be better to use the episode order featured on the DVDs (which is exactly the same)? And yes, I voted "delete", but I believe this debate is getting a little silly. Jeff-El 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      I'm saying that when you create a timeline based on implicit, unsourced assumptions, it's original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Krimpet 07:58, 28 July 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. Scope too narrow. El_C 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Shippensburg Roller Hockey awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    List of awards dispersed internally amongst one collegiate team. 650l2520 07:46, 28 July 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. （￣□￣；） Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Mr. Lee (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    According to Ryulong and Kirkend this is not notable. I have put up a lot of sources. All the sources I found are here too: http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm for a guide I think. There are over ten global ones. Please let me know. Thanks... Fromage911 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Its on DRV now too for the AFD that Ryu deleted as useless. thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mr._Lee_.28cat.29 Fromage911 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment: After the nominator created this AfD, Ryulong deleted both the article and this AfD. It was quickly brought to DRV; after discussing it with Ryulong, given the fact that it seems the article did in fact assert notability through multiple sources, he has given me the OK to close the DRV and undelete the article and AfD for a full debate here. Krimpet 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks man. All the sources were here I found... http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm Fromage911 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Also Mr Lee's pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:CC_TIT1.JPG Thanks! Fromage911 07:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete: In the end, this cat is a non-notable web personality. The most is that he is notable because he is a cat and probably has mostly appeared in cat-themed magazines, but I don't know German.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep With the multiple references from newspapers, magazines and hundreds of hits on google, the notability has been established.--Mendors 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep The references are from mainstream newspapers in several continents. Plus the obligatory cat-magazines Ryulong refers to. Agathoclea 08:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Whilst the cat is certainly newsworthy, I would question whether it is noteworthy. The news articles references all seem to be from a very narrow timespan and look to me like it was one of those trivial stories that get picked up and endlessly rehashed by journalists as a filler. I would be very surprised if the news coverage continues after this very brief burst and for this reason I think the article fails WP:Notability • nancy • talk to me • 10:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete positive proof that not everything that makes the news is notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Must of been a slow news day. Newsworthy? Maybe, notable? Not by a long shot. All the references look to be trivial mentions. Whispering 12:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, not anything anyone is going to even remember in a month or two. not notable. --Entoaggie09 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete A cat wearing a webcam?!! WP:NOTE also requires us to consider long-term notability and this has none imo. --Malcolmxl5 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mann wears webcam, notable. Cat wears one, not so much. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per article being about a cat without a single external link to an apparent neutral credible third party. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep the sources are sufficient and sufficiently mainstream. I think it highly likely that there will be more, and i'd expect some academic ones soon. if deleted, Fromage should keep track of them and rewrite in user space until it is clearly enough. This is not incidentally either trivial or cute, and some of the sources discuss it not just as a gimmick, but as animal psychology. I think the Westfalische Rundschau one is the best so far, but the English language article in The Cat is pretty good also. DGG (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete Virtually every word in that article is an attempt for it to justify its own existence. Remove the attempts at self-justification, and you are left with this: Mr. Lee is a German cat whose owner attached a wireless web cam onto the cat's collar. The cat's daily jaunts were recorded, and published online. Newsworthy is not noteworthy, and getting picked up by a few papers pretty much as offbeat news does not establish notability, imo, regardless of how reliable the sources are. Resolute 05:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. News reports are often a necessary, but never a sufficient criterion for notability. Per WP:BLP1E, mention the cat in an article on webcams or something instead. Sandstein 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, ultimately contravenes the spirit of WP:RS as the multiple stories all look to be rehashes of the same story over a short period of time... i.e., a "slow news day" type of story that got picked up here and there by multiple outlets over the span of a few weeks. Being newsworthy may be temporary, but notability is not. This ultimately appears to be the former. --Kinu /c 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, fails WP:BLC (biographies of living cats) and the sources appear to be illegitimate or incomplete. Burntsauce 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep unless someone can demonstrate the references listed are false (or are all duplicates of a single story). Until then, I must presume that they are accurate and that the cat therefore meets the notability standard. Everyking 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable, and just plain silly at this point. Xihr 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete while the photos and data collected make for interesting viewing, they do not have any encyclopedic merit.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, or transwiki to KittenPedia. NN. >Radiant< 08:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Michael "Buck" Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability, text of article is stolen from http://www.youtube.com/user/WHATTHEBUCKSHOW, possible self-promotion, warning templates deleted without justification. Ichormosquito 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    I also nominate the following, another article listed at YouTube celebrities, for similar reasons. In this case, the text is not copyrighted:
    Charles Trippy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ichormosquito 07:06, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Without any reliable sources, this is original research. The talk page seemed to address concerns about this article, which is why it is here. The article itself is speculative, unsourced and therefore does not fit criteria for inclusion. the_undertow 06:23, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Notability to come. Chealer 05:06, 28 July 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. ELIMINATORJR 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Steal This Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm suspicious about the notability of the "film series" in question. For example, it is completely nonexistent on the Internet Movie Database (not to be confused with the notable Steal This Movie), and it just seems like something that somebody has thrown together and started distributing over the internet. I ran a Google Search to receive 48000 hits, but a very large proportion of the websites are merely torrents sites from which this "movie" can be downloaded, and I personally wouldn't call the sources reliable. Even the purported official website of the film seems completely unreliable. Hopefully this discussion will reach a good consensus. Ackatsis 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete. "It was released in August 2006 only via the BitTorrent protocol for peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing." Just some web content with no evidence of notability provided. A forum thread can't be used as a notability-asserting reference. Someguy1221 04:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - ditto above. Oli Filth 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep because it was a (and maybe the only) movie released ONLY on bittorrent and it is more known than half the movies on IMDB with a large subculture. I haven't seen the movie, but it is said to cover several important topics that are more than "important this year". Including: copyright, "fair use" and the ability of the US to prosecute US laws in other countries, as well as the difference in laws between countries and the problems associated. The notability is absolutely established, even if the content is controversial. As to the cheesy website and content, well, you just may not 'get' the scene. Intentionally bad graphics and linking still also doesn't diminish notability. The Pirates Bay, the source, is also very noteworthy and seem to get press weekly. Pharmboy 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The Pirates Bay article is a blog. Blogs have no peer-review, and anyone can write one...about anything. Therefore they can't act as reliable sources, or help prove notability. What we need here are multiple, reliable, indepenent sources discussing this movie to prove that it's notable. Merely covering "important" topics doesn't make it notable. Someguy1221 09:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Comment I heard this arguement on another article: "If it isn't in the NYTimes or other big media, then it isn't reliable." I just don't buy the arguement that coverage in many smaller outlets, even "unreliable blogs" is meaningless or doesn't make it notable. If that truly the case, half the music articles on Knowledge (XXG) would be deleted and we would only have articles on Madonna and Britney Spears, and half the indy films wouldn't "be notable". As for links, Slashdot and everyone else has written about it, to the tune of over 45,000 hits, and each is a combination of reviews by thousands of real people, AND you can watch it on Google anytime to 'verify' that it exists. This isn't mainstream, but obviously SOMEONE has noticed it. Pharmboy 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete . Sorry, I wasn't certain if my "delete" vote was already counted or not. In any case, I am highly suspicious of the film's notability, and vote delete for the reasons outlined in my nomination. Ackatsis 08:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I have just seen the film, and its well made and relevant. Is the main argument against it that it is distributed through bittorrent? Because then you shouldn't have articles with some Smashing Pumpkins and Soad albums and a lot more stuff wich isn't sold. The film also talks about "The Pirate Bay", wich is very much discussed in my native country - Sweden. Dummer 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The issue is the complete lack of notability. The bittorrent part just reinforced that notability is unlikely to be satisfied, as web released movies are not going to get much attention, if any, from reliable sources. Smashing Pumpkins albums, on the other hand, are very likely to have such sources given that they were created by an extremely notable band, regardless of their medium of publication. Someguy1221 00:44, 31 July 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. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    Sonic's Rendezvous Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    WP:N; WP:RS. From the article itself: "They remained virtually unknown, but their one and only single retained high interest among fans of high energy rock and roll/ Detroit rock. A badly recorded bootleg LP called Strikes Like Lightning was traded in the 1980s." Has been a stub since mid-2005 without a single reliable source being added. THF 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong delete, perhaps a speedy A7, just not a notable band if no one wants to expand it... Make sure to nuke the image too. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep with the connection to the Rolling Stone list, which may be just enough to sustain notability. Article still needs work. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Nom didn't seem to read the article closely. It says they eventually became notable with the release of two albums that were sold out, one member was even listed on Rolling Stone's Top 100 Guitarists of All Time. Apparently popular enough to get a 2006 rerelease. Appears multiple people have updated the page. Needs work, not deletion. - Cyborg Ninja 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Please WP:AGF. I did read the article, and don't think that a small press released a small run of reprints to completists creates notability. And see Fred Sonic Smith. This band didn't make the Rolling Stone list, Smith's other band did. This band isn't the notable one. And it surely can't be the case that a member of a notable band's other projects automatically get notability, because that way lies every high-school band on Knowledge (XXG) through attenuated bootstrapping. THF 05:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    WP:MUSIC#C6 disagrees with "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Although a case could be made for merging the info to the notable band a member of this band went on to join, that can't really be done because more than one member (in fact, most) of this band were in other notable bands. Furthermore, the Rolling Stone was a list of "Great Guitarists", not "Guitarists in really popular bands", so it was the person listed on article, not the band he was with at the time. Upon further review, yes, my argument for "If he was mentioned in Rolling Stone, other sources probably exist" is likely very weak -- but I still stand by it. Furthermore, regardless of the Rolling Stone article, WP:MUSIC#C6 is on the side of this article. Spazure 05:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know how WP:MUSIC got so watered down that it now contradicts WP:N, but apparently it has. It didn't used to read "any one of the following criteria"; those criteria were guidelines for whether a subject was likely to have independent reliable sources that would allow it to meet WP:N. But apparently inclusionists have gotten hold of it; I won't reargue that here if the rules have changed and people think it more important to follow WP:MUSIC rather than WP:N and WP:RS. It's still a mystery to me why Knowledge (XXG) has much softer standards for musicians than for writers. Authors who have sold a million books are absent from Knowledge (XXG), but resources are devoted to bands that haven't sold ten thousand albums. THF 05:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Article needs better sourcing, sure, but a band's guitarist doesn't get mentioned in Rolling Stone if there isn't sufficient notability out there somewhere. This band was pre-mainstream-internet, so sources may be difficult to locate, but they're certainly out there. Also, dare I mention WP:MUSIC#C6 and review Scott Aston and Stooges. WP:MUSIC says "any one of the following criteria", so extensive coverage isn't required (though it'd be handy to add when/if it's found) Spazure 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - The article claims notability through the band's members and the fact that interest in it was apparently rekindled in the late 1990s. The article says that both albums released then quickly sold out. I'd like clearer sources, but I don't think we can call it non-notable. (edit conflict - also per comment directly above mine.)--Danaman5 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, strongly. This band had members of first rank notability, including Fred Sonic Smith from the MC5, and Scott Asheton of the Stooges. As such, it easily meets WP:MUSIC. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep There is more interest now about SRB than there has been in years, and it would seem strange that a band honored with a six disc box set by a notable UK reissue label should not be considered "worthy" of a Knowledge (XXG) listing. Given the historical importance of the members -- especially Fred Sonic Smith -- and the fact Scott Morgan, Scott Asheton and Gary Rasmussen are all still musically active, it would be little short of absurd to remove this listing. Marklansing 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • KeepSTRONGLY. There seems to be a singular proponent for deletion...What prompts a deletion from a work of information? Debate and discussion? The importance and influence of SRB, in an article, is something that can be discernible and discussed... that is relevancy enough, to prove the importance of keeping the article. Poltically motivated cencorship is never an answer, to good knowledge. "THE" John Dunne4.229.48.139
    • Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up a bit, but the band has an important place in the history of punk rock. Though they never released an LP during their existence, the band's influence was enormous on many bands of the punk era, not to mention garage bands like the Hellacopters. There's no reason why the article needs to be deleted. The reason of "no reliable source given" is erroneous; much of the information comes from the official band website. --Drifting182 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (Originally incorrectly placed on talk page.--Danaman5) KeepStrong This was a great band with members that are still active, it would be silly to delete this! Studio457 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    This is the only edit from this user.--Danaman5 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Very wise. This band notably backed Iggy Pop on his TV Eye tour in 1978 internationally. Wwwhatsup 06:59, 31 July 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. —Kurykh 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Famous Kathakali actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Subjective inclusion criterion of "famous", I'm not even sure the redlinked names are notable, let alone famous. More than 90% redlinks for a list nearly a year old isn't a good sign, redlinks aren't a problem in themselves, but it shows there isn't much hope of these becoming articles anytime soon. Saikokira 04:04, 28 July 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 JoshuaZ 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Author has been asked numerous times to show a source for this idea on the Ramones page, to which he has not came up with anything. This article is based on entirely untrue information.} Hoponpop69 03:47, 28 July 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, for all the reasons stated. El_C 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT (not a dictionary) and WP:RS (needs verification). Underweight and body image articles already exist. May consider merging with body image? Cyborg Ninja 03:42, 28 July 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. El_C 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    2000s in culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Original research has been used here to decide what is significant enough to be included, and it seems to have been compiled by a single editor. I don't mind the article, it's just a selective list of major news stories from the last few years, but I don't think this kind of news review belongs on Knowledge (XXG). Transwiki it somewhere more appropriate might be an alternative, if people don't want to delete it. Saikokira 03:38, 28 July 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 Drive a stake through the heart, stuff the mouth with garlic, cut off the head, burn the body and sprinkle the coffin with holy water. JoshuaZ 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    No references to this movie on IMDb, and a search on Yahoo and Google turned up no hits. This movie likely never even existed. Blueboy96 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Why don't you look at the producer's website (www.shockhorrorprobe.co.uk) or check sites IN THE UK. That is where it originated. It is notable because Robert Brock is popular in the genre and has directed several films.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCTheatreLover (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 July 2007. (the author of the article)

    • Note to closing Admin - if for some reason this survives, would you be so kind as to leave a note on my talk page (for cleanup purposes). Thanks! SkierRMH 03:48, 30 July 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 with no prejudice to re-creation in the future should he become notable. ELIMINATORJR 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Anthony Atkinson (basketball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The team is minimally notable; one player is not. Does not meet Knowledge (XXG) criteria for notability of athletes. Ward3001 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Merge and redirect to David Icke. Walton 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Most notable thing about Gareth Icke is that he's the son of David Icke. As a musician he fails WP:MUSIC, and as a sportsman he fails WP:N as he has only played at an amateur level. Saikokira 03:09, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Richie and the Creeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Weak relation to to a notable band seems to be the only thing this article has going. Otherwise it seems to fail WP:BAND. Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs)

    • Comment D'oh to my forgetting to sign this, and thank you TenPoundHammer for substunsigneding it. -WarthogDemon 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, no mention of or claim to notability, and only album is from this year. Nihiltres 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Article states there was a "sell out" EP, but I couldn't find any reference to it on Google, save for the WP article. I speedied it the first time I saw it. Without a source to point to where they hit a national chart (I'm going to add a comment to the talk page), I think it fails WP:BAND. Douglasmtaylor /C 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    List of Tony Reali's nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    a giant trivia/fancruft list of alleged nicknames given for a tv personality. Totally indiscriminate Biggspowd 02:10, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Al Maktoum Floating Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    While locally important, it is not a noteworthy bridge, and not every bridge needs an article. Pharmboy 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep The bridge has been mentioned by Gulf News, and seems to be part of a major network of "trunk routes" in Dubai, making it significant infrastructure that is inherently notable.--Kylohk 02:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    It is a TEMPORARY crossing, it isn't even a permanant structure, I might add. It's on pontoons. Also, almost every bridge gets some media, and I am not sure we need articles on every bridge in the world, do we? Pharmboy 02:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    I know, but how can we be sure when will it be replaced? There is no telling how many years it will take for an official bridge to be built. And of course, the fact that it is on pontoons make it more unique.--Kylohk 02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Unique doesn't meet the criteria for notability, which is the issue. And there are lots of pontoon bridges. ILIKE isn't the criteria either. There are lots of unique, cool, groovy and neat things in the world that are not encyclopedia material. This is one. I'm sure its a nice bridge and all, but it has no history or significance that makes it NOTWORTHY to anyone outside the city. Perhaps it would be better merged into the city article. Pharmboy 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Uniqueness isn't the only reason I have stated. The fact that it's: Part of a major trunk road (1 of 5 river crossings), an important infrastructure in Dubai, a major capital, mentioned by a reliable source (Search "Al Maktoum Floating Bridge" -wikipedia, look for a Gulf News article), has a unique construction method, probably worthy of discussion in civil engineering circles (pontoon construction), makes it notable for inclusion.--Kylohk 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, passes WP:N. Noteworthy bridge in major world city. When it's replaced by a regular bridge, rename the article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per above, easily passes notability here.--JForget 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per nomination. Locally important bridge in an internationally important city. This is like saying "The 145th Street Bridge is 'only important locally'". --Oakshade 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, Knowledge (XXG) is full of hundreds of pieces of information and this one article will not change Knowledge (XXG). Also, if this article is not worthy of being encyclopedia material, why are thousands of other articles going unnoticed? Why is there an article for each and every day of the year? If I am correct, normal encyclopedias do not have that. Also, why does Knowledge (XXG) have a section for current events? Surely, current events are not pieces of information that are put into reference books. But, all this extra information is what makes Knowledge (XXG) so good. Knowledge (XXG) does not want to be like all other encyclopedias and this article is what helps that difference. It is what makes Knowledge (XXG) what it is. --Leitmanp 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Unusually large for a pontoon bridge; link should probably be added there if not already. Mandsford 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Unreferenced article on a living person; I suspect it's an ad since the only link is her talent agency. Someone de-prodded without comment and added {{Japanese Erotic Cinema}}, but she doesn't actually appear on that template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong delete, very much not a notable person at all. Google turns up nothing reliable -- in fact, the 2nd hit is this very Knowledge (XXG) page. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong delete Over 18000 hits for "Kasumi Nakane -wikipedia", none of which even remotely give a job description. Nearest I can come up with is she's a Japanese pin-up girl. Article is borderline speedy IMO. --Sethacus 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be the most significant source of info for a bio, or they are not very notable to begin with. Pharmboy 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep: Do some homework. Just because you can't find much in the way of English-language sources via Google doesn't mean the subject is auto-nonnotable, especially if they are stars outside the Anglosphere. Did anyone even bother to look at her ja.wikipedia article? The list of movie roles and publications is much larger over there, the article is subject to either incessant editwarring or vandalism, because it is protected from editing, the talk page is active (and notably the first post on it is one of the en.wikipedia article versions' editors asking for help from people there to improve the article here). This should be tagged for cleanup and improved, not trashed just because it is unfamiliar and hard to source in English, very stubbish, and desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful. This is a clean-up, not a throw-away. PS: Credit where due: User:Caknuck noticed the problems with this nomination before I did, though oddly he hasn't commented here. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Answer and question. Yes, I looked. This ... desperately needs copyediting and an article lead that tells us something meaningful. What is there to say that's meaningful? She's one of zillions of more-than-averagely curvacious Japanese girls who are photographed in bikinis. I'm whelmed. -- Hoary 13:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite Japanese WP article (ja:仲根かすみ) contains more claims to notability, including that the subject is a notable tarento celebrity, with several acting and singing credits to her name on top of her gravure idol modelling. Subject also appears to do some voice-over work. We should refer this to WP:JAPAN for expansion/rewriting/translation of the ja: article. Caknuck 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The ja: article is basically just a set of lists. Thrilling! We people at WP:JAPAN have lots of more pressing things to do than write up girls in bikinis, y'know. There's anime, and manga, and more anime, and more manga, and games, and ninja, and more games, and stations, stations, always more stations. Where shall I start translating? Let's take one of the items: WPB-net DVD LIBRALY digital プレイボーイVol.2 仲根かすみ would be in English something like WPB-net DVD library digital Playboy Vol.2 Kasumi Nakane. Wild! -- Hoary 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not only does this article have no independent reliable sources, just links to her talent agency, the Japanese Knowledge (XXG) article doesn't even seem to have any links to independent reliable sources -- just the same link to her profile page at the talent agency linked from the English article. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Strong Keep Multiple TV, film, video, DVD, radio, book appearances... A poorly-written article is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to re-write. Dekkappai 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "Poorly written" is not the argument being presented for deletion. The reason for deletion is lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment The point was, she's obviously a notable celebrity and the article was not properly sourced or written. Keep the article so that it could be improved. Movements to delete articles on Japanese celebrities on the English Knowledge (XXG) usually rely on the difficulty for English-speaking editors to find good sourcing of these subjects. Since Nihonjoe has provided a wealth of reliable secondary sources, and has substantially improved the article, I move my Keep to Strong Keep. Dekkappai 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
          • No one is notable until sources are provided. "Sources are out there" is not a sound argument, because that will not allow the article to comply with WP:NOR and WP:V. Having no sources in English is also problematic because the information in the article is supposed to be verifiable by any user of English Knowledge (XXG). Japanese language sources should be used on Japanese Knowledge (XXG). Jay32183 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
            • It would be nearly impossible for a performer to appear in as much high-profile media as this subject and not have sourcing out there. The fact that we English-speaking editors outside of Japan find it quite difficult to access those sources in no way affects that notability, it means those sources have to be found. That's why I voted to keep the article until it could be properly sourced and expanded. I believe the article should have been tagged for proper sourcing, not for deletion. It is frustrating to me that Japanese Knowledge (XXG), edited by people who are presumably working from good print sources-- magazines, newspapers, etc.-- so rarely cites its sources. Anyway, Nihonjoe has found good Internet sourcing and improved the article beyond any notability concerns. And "No foreign-language sourcing for foreign topics," is an argument for, "If I don't know about it, it's not worth knowing." No point in arguing with something like that... Dekkappai 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
              • It's get sources, then make the article. The foreign language thing isn't an "I don't know it" argument, it's a "people who don't speak Japanese cannot verify the article" argument. WP:V says that any user needs to be able to verify content as well as stating a preference for English language sources. Jay32183 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep as she's been the main subject (meaning her name has been in the title) of at least 7 of the at least 27 DVD/video releases featuring her, and had eight photo books released (based on the information in the Japanese article and content on Amazon Japan). That's definitely notable by any definition used here. ···日本穣 07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • But Joe, gurabia aidoru are 百円 a dozen. For her delightful topographical association, I clicked on this one. Her fans haven't updated her list of books. I don't suppose there's much to say about any of these people beyond what's put out by their PR agencies, and I don't suppose much of it is true. What can one say about them, beyond "Here is the set of factoids that's said to represent her, and she has appeared in this set of forgettable books and that set of forgettable DVDs"? (Or are some of these books and DVDs noteworthy in some way?) -- Hoary 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You say she's notable; can you add some references to the article that take note of her? Interviews, profiles, articles? Who has taken note of her? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I say she's notable based on having at least 7 video releases (in whatever format) where she's the main feature (or only feature) in that release. On top of that, she's had at least 8 photo books released, and that alone makes her notable as the subject of at least 15 published works. All of the works are easily verified, and published by major publishers. She may not be as well known as someone like Agnes Lum (to people in Japan), but she's definitely notable. ···日本穣 08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • We're not IMDB. We don't just make dossiers of the works people have appeared in. Can you provide any sources with which we can write this article? That's why the notability guideline exists; if there's nothing verifiable to say, we should say nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, and only one or two of her appearances in film or TV are even mentioned in the article. I'm not saying she's notable because of her acting career. It's her modeling career that makes her notable, and she has a large number of published (by large publishers) photobooks to back it up, not to mention the videos and DVDs. The dime-dozen models don't have such a large number of them in general. I've expanded the works section to include ISBNs where I could find them. I've also expanded the bio details a bit (with info from the JA article as well as other sources). ···日本穣 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, what can one say about books or DVDs such as these? I'm not knocking Japanese cheesecake, but I don't recall reading anything about it. Can you point to a worthwhile description or summary of Japanese cheesecake DVDs or books within any WP article? Is there any reason to believe the biographical "facts" of people like this? And what else is left? The Agnes Lum article you point to says nothing about her gurabia, merely that it was made and is now expensive; Yoko Matsugane, about as famous as they come now, has a couple of lists of "works", a list of biographical factoids (of course including a nod to this stupidity), and a generic write-up that could apply to any of hundreds of these girls. -- Hoary 08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I try to remove the blood type from articles when I see it as I don't think it's really relevant to an encyclopedic article (at least a general one like you'd find here). As I indicated above, I've expanded the article a bit and expanded the detail on what was there. I should note that until seeing this AfD, I'd never heard of her, but I now believe her to be notable. It's impossible to have that much professionally published material out there and not be notable. She's been published many times through multiple very large publishers (Kodansha, Shueisha, Futabasha, and so on). I don't see how you can seriously argue she's not notable with such a mountain of evidence in support of notability. ···日本穣 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
              • She certainly gets lots of Google hits. And she's been in a lot of books. So I suppose she's more notable than most of the alternatives, though it seems a negligible notability to me. -- Hoary 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Neutral. I get the impression that she's a sort of living female clotheshorse, the clothes here tending heavily toward lingerie and bikinis. Nothing wrong with any of that. (Indeed, she's one cog in a machine that's worthy of study: How is it that in Japan -- where photographs leaving almost nothing of the the female body to the imagination can legally be published and published, prodigiously -- there's such a huge and I think exclusively hetero male market for chaste cheesecake? But that's hardly an encyclopedic concern.) But I don't discern any achievement, aside (I presume) from an avoidance of skin blemishes and the ability to hold a smile for a long time without it coming to look too fake. Still, if such young ladies as this one get articles, perhaps this one can too. -- Hoary 06:43, 31 July 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. I reckon the numerical vote to be only 12-to-7 for deletion, but arguments for deletion seem more consistent with policy in this case. In addition to NOT and TRIVIA, the article's poor focus condemns it to an irredeemable hodgepodge of original synthesis. Secondary sources about yeti in popular culture could probably correct this problem, but nothing suggests that such sources even exist—a fatal problem that puts the article on the far side of both WP:V and WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 01:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    In that case, feel free to edit the article to add references to the reliable sources that assert the notability of appearances of yetis in popular culture, so we can all agree. spazure (contribs) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    WP:ILIKEIT .. is there a precident and/or policy that agrees with this idea? Keeping the trivia without cluttering the mainspace with it seems a way to keep both viewpoints on the "in popular culture" lists happy. spazure(contribs) 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    WP:BASH .. but there is in fact a guideline that supports exactly what I have proposed. On Knowledge (XXG):Subpages, it is written that temporary subpages in the Talk namespace are a permitted use of subpages, and I think they are a good idea for cleaning up these sections without forking them or troubling AfD over them. Note also that we have Template:Workpage for just this purpose as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info! spazure (contribs) 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I think this one could probably be merged, but based on recent practice that would be equivalent to delete, so it would be better to keep and edit. I'm glad to see a nomination which does at least say almost all trivia articles, not all trivia article. Progress is being made. DGG (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I nominated the article for deletion because there is no progress to be made. Outright deletion is the best thing to do. Shortening a collection of loosely associated topics does not make them not loosely associated topics. Jay32183 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - per nom. I second that all articles focused on the "popular culture" should be deleted. Once the focus becomes the present or what is popular an article automatically looses its cohesion. It becomes meaningless trivia. --Storm Rider 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Irredeemable. Hawkestone 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Article is not at all abominable; not yet irredemable

    it's a rather detailed description about portrayals of a creature that nearly everyone believes to be fictional, and handles the subject well. If need be, merge into Yeti rather than delete. Author encouraged to save work, just in case. Mandsford 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Knowledge (XXG) as well. Burntsauce 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep It's really the only place we could list cartoon Yetis like from the Warner Brothers cartoons and the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials. But I'm surprised the "Abominable Snowman" ( of the Ritts Puppets ) that was shown for years on public service ads isn't listed. Squidfryerchef 05:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    WP:BHTT isn't a valid delete rationale. spazure (contribs) 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm suggesting a kind of converse of BHTT in this case. I think there ought to be some grouping of these fictional Yetis. But because there are so many, it would just be a silly tangent to plop my particular favorites in the main Yeti article. ( The usual BHTT argument would be "we don't really want this list, but its easier to move it into its own article than rewrite into encyclopedic prose" ). Squidfryerchef 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, I see your point, and perhaps I was a bit too hasty to respond with BHTT. Nonetheless, I fail to see a policy-based rationale for keeping. Although my opinion may not be relevant on the larger scale, my delete reasoning isn't set in stone, so I'm open to other peoples' opinions. spazure (contribs) 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    The back story is, a while back I had flashed on that Yeti from the public service ads, and I'd planned to list it under "Yeti in popular culture". So, if this article gets deleted, there really isn't any place to put two sentences and a link about something, until I get enough material to write an article on the Ritts Puppets. I'm more into an "Is this article good for Knowledge (XXG)" argument than trying to find a rule for it. Squidfryerchef 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. I'll politely oppose your opinion on this article, but I understand your rationale. WP:IGNORE exists for a reason, after all. spazure (contribs) 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Not really my area of expertise, but I can see no notability in these products as opposed to any other campany's products. Google search brings up many results, but these are for the company website and lists of stockists in the main. Emeraude 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    Aw2 Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Can't see any assertion of notability other than (to paraphrase) "the company exists and has services". Besides which, this article isn't even close to encyclopedic. Oli Filth 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Keep. CitiCat 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    NN. A feature that appeared in an issue of TV Guide once. So someone created a Knowledge (XXG) article about it. Also nominating the related TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time. Saikokira 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete both, pure WP:TRIVIA even though it's interesting. Totally unencyclopedic, useless lists. And "Masquerade Party" ranked #8 on the game show list? I'm a game show fanatic and I've never heard of that one! Ten Pound Hammer • 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep per Pharmboy. The articles can be rewritten to further cover the actual issues in question, with less emphasis on the list (the list can be kept I assume). I don't know what the standard is, however, for TV Guide issues. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • weak keep Lord knows I hate lists and trivia sections, but this was a single issue in 2001 by the authority on TV, TV Guide. As long as the article is about that particular significant ISSUE, and not just the list itself (BARELY meets that criteria), then I would let it slide. Barely. Pharmboy 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. per above. James Luftan 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete 1) I'm uncomfortable with copying a list from a magazine in its entirety to wikipedia. This should be just linked to, whenever possible. 2) I dont think we need to make an article every time a magazine/news outlet releases a top ___ list about any topic. Corpx 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep both No perceptible copyright violation here; TV Guide does this type of article because it expects the rankings to be water cooler talk. It's simply a listing of what TV Guide considered to be the best shows. If not deleted, then merge into article about American TV game shows.
    • Note to administrator Nominator attempted to add a second list for deletion, something which almost nobody appears interested in or even noticed. If this is to be deleted, only the main nomination seems to be the subject of discussion. Statement that "Also nominating the related TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time." sounds like an afterthought, and is not really the way to go about a piggyback nomination. Mandsford 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    The second article seems to be added

    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 - Cyborg Ninja 04:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Does not seem to satisfy WP:Notability Biophys 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Strong Keep The article is not the best written, but a little research shows he is noteworthy, even if the article isn't making that clear. He is better known in Russia and most of the available info is in Russian so hard to translate. He is more a political figure than the article explains. I would ask to wait and see how the article develops, as it appears it is written by someone who doesn't speak English as their first language. I would also add that anyone that is considered "an enemy of the state" for supporting free speech in Russia is noteworthy in the US for that fact alone, considering the current/past politicial tensions. In a short period of research, I found enough that I want to learn more, and hope someone cleans the article up. Pharmboy 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep per Pharmboy. A quick glance at the articles that google threw up suggests that he is a prominent journalist in a country not renowned for its freedom of press. His name crops up in a few WP articles including Media freedom in Russia where he is cited as an example of a journalist of "patriotic persuasions". This is, I feel, an article in need of work rather than being deleted. --Malcolmxl5 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep per above. References have been added, so I think it's time to remove the notability tag, as this person seems to be rather notable indeed. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. Established notability, rich amount of sources, and a few external links. James Luftan 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Notable and plenty of sources cited. Suggest that nom read WP:Notability again before nominating articles for deletion. - Cyborg Ninja 03:58, 28 July 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 Orderinchaos 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Big Brother Australia 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Future event richi 00:21, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Also included:

    Will Saulbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, most GHits are for MySpace. Almost reads as if it were copied from someplace. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:19, 28 July 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 both. Sr13 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    List of American soap operas aired in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    List of Australian soap operas aired in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indiscriminate information, no better than a List of American police dramas aired in the United Kingdom, or a List of American cartoons aired in Italy. Or even List of Australian soap operas aired in the United Kingdom, which is also nominated for deletion here. Saikokira 23:50, 27 July 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. --Fang Aili 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Www.dogstarfoundation.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Also included in this discussion: Dogstar foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Duplicate pages on a non-notable foundation that fails WP:RS, WP:V, reads as possible you-know-what (and possible copyvio too). Author declined G11 speedy on Dogstar foundation, so I'm taking both pages to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:07, 28 July 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 redirect to Archangel per Grutness and CaveatLector. Band is non-notable but this is a common misspelling. Daniel Case 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable reggaeton artist. Only "reference" is their Myspace page, so it fails WP:V. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, as the article's label is not notable and he has no awards or known media coverage. Article is full of peacock terms with no references to back up the articles claims of fame. I say delete. -- Boricuaeddie 00:01, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Was originally speedily deleted per CSD A7, overturned to relist per DRV This is a procedural nomination. I'm neutral. IronGargoyle 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    edit conflict happened has something been unintentionally deleted?

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

    The result was redirect to Lilya 4-ever. MastCell 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Article seems to be mostly OR. One reference to a Swedish newspaper is provided but... the article is in Swedish. Doesn't seen to be enough to establish notability. The Parsnip! 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Case 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge, for if the Swedish wiki has no article, and notability cannot be confirmed, merge per above.Ravenmasterq 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the Swedish Knowledge (XXG) is not that large, so it can't be expected to have articles about everything related to Sweden. I'm somewhat leaning towards keep, by the way. Punkmorten 08:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I think the documentary gives historic notability as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of the English language publications I turned up when researching this mentioned Dangoule Rasalaite explicitly; the claim that she is the inspiration for the film (by no means a documentary), as far as I'm aware, rests on the Swedish newspaper. Espresso Addict 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Since Dangoule Rasalaite is dead, this can't be a BLP issue. However, our unsourced article remains the #1 Google hit for her name. I think it's unwise to preserve unsourced information indefinitely, since there's no guarantee that it is correct. Our existing article on the film Lilya 4-ever preserves the name Dangoule Rasalaite, so the connection is still there. I think we should not have a free-standing article on Dangoule unless we have sources. I read the New York Times review of the film, but it doesn't mention her name, possible due to the difficulty of checking the facts. There is no Babelfish available for translating from Swedish to English, so it's hard to figure out what the Swedish newspaper is saying. I'd believe the quoted date of her death, since no translator is needed for that, but it doesn't seem enough for an article. EdJohnston 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    no sources, only one scant link to UD Will 06:58, 28 July 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 for deletion in this debate/discussion.. Navou 02:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    Only one source - we need multiple sources. Most of the article is trivia. Will 07:01, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    neologism, only one "source" to a unreliable site Will 07:03, 28 July 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 unreferenced slang. IrishGuy 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

    The article purports to describe a stereotype, the name of which is a slang word. Searching for sources I find none at all that document any such type of person, let alone that can be used to confirm any of the contents of the article (such as the clothing preferences of this type of person). This article is documentation, being constructed firsthand directly by Knowledge (XXG) editors, for something for which there is no prior documentation outside of Knowledge (XXG); it is original research, which is forbidden here. There's no evidence that this is even an alternative name for the stereotypes that are documented, such as chav, so no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    • It is clearly described, and it has been thoroughly explained, what don't you understand. Mind you I could publish a book within the next few years on it should you really need references, to a locally used word that I've heard being used. New words have to begin somewhere eh? garethppls 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, with the requirement for published works such as newspaper articles or books to be used as sources for articles, I must say "Here is not that 'somewhere'". -- saberwyn 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete unsourced, non notable neologism. 72 GHits, most of which are nothing to do with this term (most are non English words that happen to share the spelling). Nuttah68 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Non notable original research. ArchStanton 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are people using this word on their myspace, bebo and other personal pages. You can find them if you simply google the word (i do not wan't to invade their privacy by linking to personal pages). You will note that all of the people are from the areas we pointed out that the word is in use.
    • the word is in use in the areas we point out and it is also spreading outwards from these areas. It is a legitamite word and i don't see your problems with it. It is well explained and i'm sure that people will find the page useful. Cahillgod 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:ATT every page must have references, all other arguments are secondary. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi, I live in Celbridge and i noticed this word is up for deletion because it does not have sources. Well, the word is widely used in Kildare and Dublin and it has been published in local newspapers, the only problem is that these local papers don't have web pages so they cannot be referenced for this page. I would not be happy for this word and its definition to be deleted as it is a perfectly legitimate entry and is widely used in the areas pointed out. 194.106.155.33 11:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment for those saying the article should stay, you may want to read Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Nuttah68 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • However it does more than a dictionary would do it tells you where it is commonly used and what is commonly associated with them. You wouldn't find that in any dictionary, no matter how big it is. I reckon that it is to full encyclopedic quality. - garethppls 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with Gareth, the entry defines the word, what type of people it relates to, what they commonly wear, their attitudes and their type of lifestyle and this is much, much more than a simple dictionary definition. Cahillgod 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
          • And all of that is original research, which is forbidden here. You have cited no sources where the attitudes and lifestyle of this purported stereotype are documented, and no such sources actually exist. Everything in Knowledge (XXG) must have been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge, outside of Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for editors to write firsthand observations, new theories, and personal inferences; nor is it the place for first documenting what has not been already documented elsewhere. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
            • We haven't made this up as you seem to think, but i can see that nothing will change your mind anyway, so go ahead, delete it. I will weep quietly in the corner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cahillgod (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
              • Please look on the references section, a source where it is used has been added. garethppls 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
                • No one thinks that you made this word up. We do not need proof of its existence, what we do need are reliable sources that discuss its meaning. If you read WP:ATT then it would be clear. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all. Your second cited article at least says something about shambags, but is a post to a web discussion forum by an unidentifiable person, and thus is not information can be relied upon to have been through a process of fact checking and peer review, and is not from an author whose reputation for accuracy can be checked. Even if it were fact-checked and peer-reviewed and its author could be authenticated and were reliable, it supports none of the content of the article that you have written. Uncle G 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
            • "Weep quietly in the corner"? Are you serious? Do you think pity will move us? I assure you, we are pitiless. However, we are not immovable. There is something that could change our minds. We require sources. If you do indeed have verifiable sources in print form, please cite them. Even though we would not be able to immediately verify them with our own eyes because they are not web-based, we would have to assume good faith, and as we do have editors the world over, even local papers could be eventually checked out for accuracy. So while I would not encourage you to make stuff up, or misrepresent the content of the sources, I would definitely encourage you to cite (and accurately summarize the content of) whatever sources you have.—Carolfrog 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
              • "Your first cited article says nothing about shambags at all." - Not trying to be rude but are you blind? The first article defines what the word means.—garethppls 07:12, 14 March 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. —Kurykh 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    neologism Will 07:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Redirected to Electra complex. Redirects are cheap. ELIMINATORJR 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    orphaned for twelve months and unsourced for eleven (UD doesn't count). This should redirect, but I know not where. Will 07:10, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    only sources are a wiki and Urban Dictionary, neologism, and the second paragraph (concerning several emo/"post-hardcore" bands) is very shaky per BLP Will 07:13, 28 July 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. CitiCat 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    neologism - only sources UD Will 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep grudgingly - this is definitely not a neologism, however this article does have absolutely no sources, which could be rectified, but will require someone going to a bookshop or library.Stevebritgimp 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete/Transwiki — while I agree with those above who say this is not a neologism, it seems unlikely that enough research has been done into the accent/dialect to be able to create a fully sourced article with content beyond that suitable for Wiktionary. --Safalra 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • weak keep not much to go on, but I'll check this in the library on Monday. I'm only 25 miles from Plymouth so they may have something. Totnesmartin 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • delete The article has been transwikied. I've tagged it in case its now worthy of speedy delete. Moonriddengirl 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've denied the request for speedy deletion. I'd rather see the article kept if it can be sourced properly which, apparently, seems to be a bit of a challenge. On the other hand, some of the content (in particular concerning the evolution of the term) is clearly inappropriate for Wiktionary but would in fact be very much suitable for Knowledge (XXG). Pascal.Tesson 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I found a basic book reference to the meaning from Cyril Tawney, who is/was a credible authority. Gordonofcartoon 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • strong keep. Now referenced and is an accurate article. MurphiaMan 06:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    a journalist got called it? Big deal. No sources. Will 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Delete It seems to have sources but they aren't very notable and the term seems like a neologism. Wikidudeman 13:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NEO - no references that actually talk about the term and not just use it. Corpx 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete funny, but still a neologism with no third-party, secondary sources. VanTucky 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong keep. Rush coined the term many years ago and many have used it. It gets over 17k ghits and has existed long enough to be more than a short term word. It is controversial because it sounds negative but was conceived as a neutral term. There are many references outside of the article, and it isn't required that the sources be used to justify the notability of the phrases infobabe/newsbabe. The article needs to be properly referenced, not deleted. Pharmboy 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Prevalent attitude in broadcast news. Not neologism. Wl219 11:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nomination, not even worthy of passing to Wiktionary or even Urban Dictionary. Burntsauce 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn - reasonably sourced now. Will 13:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    Disregarding the UD ref, we have one source, which makes the subject an nonnotable neologism Will 07:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Keep. Snopes is a reliable source. The term is attributed to another reliable source (although no reference is given). Seems like it has some degree of notability to me. JulesH 10:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      Everything2 is user-content, therefore we can't verify such content. So is UD. Leaves us with one. (Snopes, which I will not deny is reliable) Articles need multiple sources. Will 10:41, 28 July 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 per valid CSD A5 and limited but unanimous consensus to delete. Nihiltres 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    neologism Will 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    It's been transwikied, and I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Moonriddengirl 12:21, 29 July 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 Withdrawn - got mixed up. No objections. Will 09:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    nn neologism Will 07:33, 28 July 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 Leave a redirect to wiktionary. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary and no sound argument has been provided regarding that concern.. Pascal.Tesson 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    no reliable sources apart from its origin and a very shaky notability - its claim is unsourced, and only a few blogs have picked up on the term. Will 07:37, 28 July 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 Withdrawn - a merge seems the best way to solve this. Will 18:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    North American monetary union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    cites no sources, OR, possible POV piece. Cites few sources and reads like OR. Will 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    Weak Delete. A google search on "North American Union" reveals what seem to be dubious hits with the exception of this one: Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears. If it is to be kept, it needs a complete rewrite, since it's presented very straightforwardly. Moonriddengirl 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Speedy Keep, but to a previous version - This is NOT the way to handle a single, disruptive user who keeps reverting the changes of others over the course of one day. The origianl article needed a lot of work, but is was basically NPOV. A comparision of the primary docuement with the above piece on the NAU reaveals a huge difference - the primary source deals with the actual pos and cons of a monetary union of North America along the lines of the Euro, and did not get into the urban legends at all. Please, this AFD should be speedied as Keep, and the disruptive user dealt with individually. However, if the article s allowed to stand as it is as basically a conspiracy piece, then it should be deleted, as such materail has no place on Knowledge (XXG). - BillCJ 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The AFD process was not designed to be an excuse to avoid discussions. While the Speedy keep was being overturned, I found the very similar American currency union, which has abundant sources. I was in the process of proposing a merger of the two pages when the AFD was refiled. I sincerely hope that the American currency union is not nominated for deletion soon, esp. by the same editor. That would be vary sad indeed. - BillCJ 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whatever the state of the current article, currency union is a concept discussed by serious people in serious venues. E.g., Diane Francis, "A good marriage: Loonie-Greenback: Now is the time to discuss currency union with the U.S." Financial Post, October 3, 2002, p. 3 (quoting the opinions of various economists on the viability and desirability). In the decade or so before that, it was an idea that arose regularly in Canadian circles. There's surely an article to be written about this. Bucketsofg 18:38, 28 July 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. ˉˉ╦╩ 12:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    unverified material, based primarily on one popular book. The whole "US Generations" project is just atrocious! This is but one example Dylanfly 16:07, 28 July 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. ˉˉ╦╩ 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    One of many pages dedicated to a single popular book, by Strauss and Howe; serves mostly to promote their consulting business. Not used at all by academics. Deserves one article, not 30. Moreover, very confusing, given widespread use of US Gilded Age, with entirely different dates. Truly below Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. Dylanfly 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Merge into Generations (book). There seems to be far too much coverage of Strauss and Howe's pop sociology in Knowledge (XXG); to justify articles on every single generation it would be useful if someone could establish that their generational listings had been accepted by other authors as well. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • while the afd is going is a good time to improve articles, so i removed the list of the 100 or so people born during the 2 decades. That is the epitome of non-encyclopedic content. As for he article, I notice there are no sources, so, even as improved,
    • 'delete unless sourced.'DGG (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Perhaps some of the material could be merged, but eliminating this article should be the priority. Hawkestone 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know if I'm allowed to chime in on my own nomination, but a MERGE could work, as far as I'm concerned. I just think its preposterous to have the Strauss and Howe stuff encompass 30 of its own wikipedia articles. I nominated Republican Generation for delete, but it was kept. That and this and a dozen others could be piled onto ONE page for Strauss and Howe's cheesy work. --Dylanfly 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Keep — Caknuck 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

    ibid. Strauss and Howe's stuff; not only unsubstantiated, amateur, and uncited, but also a preposterous view of American history, in which only WHITES (and primarily MEN) are considered. Generally based on ELITE cultures too. Ignores diversity, and perpetuates a very biased view of US History. Dylanfly 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Speedy keep - Last time I checked those are reasons to clean it up, not delete it. My advice: So fix it. Cool Blue 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep per above. Nom has given reasons for cleanup, not deletion. My recommendation: WP:SOFIXIT. (The subject isn't my area of expertise, so I admittedly can't do so myself.) Ten Pound Hammer • 21:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • very weak keep if any sources can be shown other than the two authors of the theory. There just might be some, but I'd like to see them--the advantage of having sources will include demonstrating a better POV,--based on a preliminary scan, they will not include any mainstream academic history. As for fixing it, I removed the very long list of 19th century republicans, or those claimed to be sympathetic to republican principles, or those things done in the period the authors of this theory consider "republican". Internal linkfarm. Next step--cleaning up the what links here. DGG (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep Nakedly POV nomination. Hawkestone 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep Does not meet deletion standards. Instead should be cleaned up, SOFIXIT applies as mentioned by TenPoundHammer above Brian | (Talk) 10:18, 31 July 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. Does not appear maintainable nor even remotely holistic; overlap seems arbitrary. El_C 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of LGBT-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This list is of no use. One, it is impossible to update - WP:LGBT have over 7000 articles, a tiny fraction of which is represented here. It is were fully filled up it would be too large and unwiedly to navigate. Two, the list is arranged alphabetically andnot by category and thus does not help any user looking for something. Three, mere article titles are not helpful, as many are ambiguous. No-one's working on this, and we have a category system if you're looking for something in particular. Let's delete it and write some more useful and interesting lists. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 28 July 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.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑