Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 4 - 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Carolina girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song has not been released as a single. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:SONG. Sam 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Akeldama (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Debut album of The Faceless, NN band per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Faceless and 4 speedy deletions as A7. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE. Amalthea 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the band page, delete the album page. Seems more like a hate to this band noting that you didn't delete any other tech band pages AND you removed them from the technical death metal page, when they are in fact tech death. 24.18.205.58 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Craig Boddington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem particularly notable. Sam 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. leaning keep. Almost evenly split, keeps are slightly stronger in backing up. Relisting with this amount of participatin already is not likely to create consensus. TravellingCari 04:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AlphaPets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this series of books. Schuym1(talk) 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads of the House of York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such formal title ever existed, and hence any attempt to define the rightful inheritance to such a title must represent POV, and the resulting account represent OR. The page appears to have been created solely as a POV fork to rebut the descent hypothesized in the Britain's Real Monarch documentary (itself FRINGE). The only authentic portions of this page were copied from the House of York page, and no benefit would come from merging the added nonsense back there. Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scream IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed; kicking it to you guys. Though it was review by a secondary editor.

Anyway, rationale: WP:NFF NuclearWarfare My work 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Topkapi Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 2009 or 2010 remake fails WP:NFF with no indication when filming will start. Cast is rumored, production details are unknown. Half of the movie links have been pulled down. WP:CRYSTAL violation. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the links wern't pulled down... they were simply improperly formatted. I repaired them and they may now be accessed. That being said and done, this is maybe just a touch too soon for this article? Schmidt, 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Withdraw per this: http://gliving.tv/music/?p=37. The Eeenie Meanie (or whatever it was) link does not show notability because that the label's website. I am fine with one reliable source that shows notability. The delete vote doesn't count because that was the creator's vote.NAC Schuym1(talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue-Eyed Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. Still seem to be a hoax, but it is the Laws not the article that's the hoax.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks possible on first inspection - on the first page of gnews hits is this link Cornell University : Blue Laws of the old States which refers to original colonial laws as 'Blue Laws' and refers to a 'Governor Eaton' in 1655. Now the text (which seems to be a review of one of the references for the subject article - casts some doubt on the details, but does not debunk them either. MadScot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Essentially a content dispute that needs further work to get information and show the status. probably a notable hoax. Some secondary literature is needed. DGG (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, with rewrite to indicate they are not an accurate statement of actual laws WP:V is a basic hurdle for such an article to pass. We have a modern ref, cited by the nominator, which says these are a hoax, created by a Rev. Peters in 1781, and the article cites old print refs which are not readily available. This creates the need for someone with access to a good research library to determine if these old print references say what is claimed, and for the community to see if there are other reliable sources which evaluate whether the old print references are reliable and accurate. Knowledge (XXG) has seen seemingly well documented hoaxes before, such as the nonexistent "Upper Peninsula War," and numerous hoax towns, generals, battles and laws. The Eaton book of 1656 and its 1858 reprint are in a few libraries, per Google Book Search, but is not available online. Someone could check it. The Andrus book is available for limited search via Google Book search and does not contain several particular ones of the laws quoted that I searched. The Connecticut Code of 1650 is discussed in De Toqueville, Democracy in America(1835), page 41, , where he described peculiar laws based on holy writ, lending some credence. A key reliable source is "The American Catholic Quarterly Review" (1877) which analyzes the Peters version of the blue laws in detail and says that many of them cannot be substantiated based on the historical record, but that many Connecticut records form the 1640's and 1650's are suspiciously missing, as if cleansed. Some of Peters' claims did appear to be in accord with the actual practice of the 1650's. All in all, there is SOMETHING notable here, even if it is a "controversy." Connecticut had some theocratic blue laws in the 1600's which were extreme in their requirements of adherence to the religious beliefs of the majority, and Peters may have exaggerated or fabricated some examples, and likely never even saw a printed list of the laws he reports. But the Catholic Quarterly Review says "it is hardly possible to call Peters's Blue Laws forgeries, for too many of them have a real basis" (p494) but "Peters cannot be cited at all as authority; that many of his clauses are palpable invention"(p 496). Editing needed by someone with a taste for this sort of thing. Edison (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to blue law ; if kept, this needs to be renamed to something else, like Blue laws (Conn.) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a content issue. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah gleeson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purported to be a character from a book, I can find no evidence the book or the author exist. Hoax or not, the article anyway appears to be complete nonsense and should be speedied as such. Ros0709 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tim Yeo. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Julia Stent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this comes under BLP1E. The subject had a minor political office but is only really notable for being caught up in a political scandal. I doubt anyone remembers her name and the article is linked only from the name of someone else in the same scandal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I do think that the article is a plausible link, search and category member so I don't think a deletion would be good. JASpencer (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it does appear in Tim Yeo's article. This affair totally derailed his career. JASpencer (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result was speedy delete. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blütreich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable demo NS black metal band; fails WP:MUSIC by virtue of having no releases, no tours (it's a one man bedroom band effectively) and no coverage by independent reliable sources. So obscure even Metal Archives hasn't heard of them, and their Myspace has been deleted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

?Notable

When I started to compile this list I thought it was appropriate for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). I had found the many lists here to be incredibly useful and thought that this one would be worth adding. Now I'm not sure it meets WP criteria, can't bring myself to dump it and in any case lack the experience and objectivity to judge it properly. So I'm bringing it in to be tried.

I am unsure if the list's potential as a word-games resource is of relevance to Knowledge (XXG)'s aims or not. Either way I think it also provides useful information. If a reader Searches for Sum River (which has no Knowledge (XXG) article) the Search results page will show its entry in the list. There s/he will find that such streams do exist in Russia and Thailand and by following the cited web-links can find out more.

I must also declare a personal interest. If the list is thought worth keeping, information in it will provide a vital strand in a competition I am hoping will be run by a top UK daily newspaper. To tackle the competition, readers will have to use Knowledge (XXG) (for the list, obviously, and for other things as well). The page's notability will get a boost while the competition is on and I think there will be permanent positive effects on both its notability and the attitude to Knowledge (XXG) of the paper's readers (the paper in question tends to be a bit anti-Knowledge (XXG).). I will be donating to Knowledge (XXG) one-third of whatever I may get for setting the competition.

I don't think this plan conflicts with the interests of Knowledge (XXG). If the list's worth keeping, it's worth keeping (and improving). But is it worth keeping?

I'd say Keep but then I would, wouldn't I? Dinoceras (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The collection is totally arbitrary; there is no connection between them other than the length of names. The intro also suggests this is a copyviolation. Ros0709 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me say first how much I appreciate the honesty and good faith of the nominator. We need more of that. As to the above remark about a copyvio, I'm pretty sure anything published by the federal government is the common property of all U.S. citizens and cannot be copyrighted. All that aside, helping people in word games is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG), and the list does not provide any good encyclopedic content or any real assistance in navigating. Perhaps it would work as a category and still serve the author's purpose, but I'm going to say Delete the list. Alternatively, you could have it userfied so it would still be accessible. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous comments. You say the list might work as a category. I'm not sure how categories work and have failed to find any information on the subject (don't know which keywords to search with, I suspect) Could you direct me to a page which would explain? Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time and honesty about this article, but it's rather arbitrary to have only 1- 2- and 3-letter names, nor is it notable. I'll have to vote Delete but I would not oppose you keeping this list in userspace. Reywas92 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as plain trivia. Alexius08 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Trim tothe 1 and 2 letter words -- three letter names are pretty common. A list is better than a category because it can indicate the location. A category can not. But i think we might like to hear more about this competition--perhaps on your user talk page? DGG (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In fairness to other potential competitors, I don't feel I can give out much information about the competition. It won't work if the three-letter streams aren't accessible to the general public but that's my problem not yours Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but remove the three-letter names. Place names of one and two letters are somewhat unusual and I think this is a viable list, however I'm concerned about the fact there are few if any links here to articles. If the rivers themselves aren't notable enough for articles, are they notable enough for a list of this nature? That's why I put "weak" keep. In principle I think the idea works; in practice it needs some work. Another reason for the "weak" modifier is the fact the list creator has nominated it. 23skidoo (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Isn't deciding for ourselves that one and two letter names are automatically notable original research? I admit it's unusual, but is there any real encyclopedic reason that three letters are not noteworthy and two are? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
OR applies to the content of articles. We often do a little quick research here or in talk space to see if something is notable, or to decide other questions raised.But deciding on a general question about what we should count as notable is discussion not research in any event. DGG (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you do have a good point there, perhaps that was a bad choice of words on my part. What I was getting at is that I don't see how cutting it down to two letter names makes it a more valid concept than if the three letter names were included. It seems a rather subjective line, as I for one couldn't think of a single three letter river name off the top of my head. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Kennedy (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original title of this was "Adam Kennedy (eco-scientist extraordinaire)" and it may be self-promotion (SPA author kennaster (talk · contribs)). The tone could be fixed, but the substance is thin. The references are (a) the web-site of his own "Kennedy Institute of Teaching and Research", (b) a paper published at a Student Research Symposium in April 2005, (c) a presentation at a conference in 2006. The "Kennedy Institute" seems to be just a database and calculator for the Trans-Niño Index, but it is part of a larger site which includes Kennedy's CV, showing seven published papers and a current position as Faculty Research Assistant at Oregon State University. This is some way short of notability to the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - by prodding Scholar a bit I did find two articles (the first and third are the same); but it's not enough. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1(talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stropping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources for this. Schuym1(talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete If someone can show why it is a notable method. As it is, it is a WP:DICDEF, and likely it would be hard to find reliable sources. You can find examples of it being USED as a term in programming (newsgroups, etc.) but not wp:rs sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep After new sources were found (including one that made my eyes bleed) it appears that a KEEP is actually in order. A very difficult subject to source, and a technical one, but that shouldn't prevent it from being included. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a perfectly cromulent term: I have added a reference to its use in Algol68. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It would be very, very easy to change my !vote if I could actually see a wp:rs reference that was a weblink and established the notability of the term. Not that weblink references are better, but this *is* a term used in programming, and holy cow, you would *think* there would be a source available on the internet that could easily establish the notability of the term, if it is notable. It would truly embiggen the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Google for "Algol68 stropping" gives two hits on Knowledge (XXG) (!): Algol 68 and ALGOL 68G, then you could try here, here, here, or, under "stropping convention" here, here, here or here. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I did, and had before. The problem is that all those mention stropping incidentally, which is what I found when I searched. (hense my weak modifier) I didn't find any "the importance of proper stropping" type articles, or anything that talks about stropping as a primary subject matter. That (or two) is kinda what is needed to help establish it is notable by itself. I don't think the concerns is whether or not stropping exists, it is about whether or not there is enough potential for it to be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Several of those references go into descriptions of the several different kinds of stropping conventions (for one particular language). The Hansen and Boom article is about stropping. The article describes different conventions for other languages, presumably they can be sourced too. That all seems to me to add up to much more than a mere dictionary definition. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
OMG, that made me want to stab an eye out with a shrimp fork, PFD of an image, and is not searchable. Somehow I missed that one reference, but yes, you are totally correct, and that would change my opinion. I added to the article, and will tag a bit more. The article needs work, but seems perfectly legit, in my eyes. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant and obvious misinformation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Liquid Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources for this, so it seems to be something made up in one day. Schuym1(talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvester42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every research project at every university is not notable, and the article doesn't indicate why this particular project would be notable. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment...harvester42 is an article about a meta search engin like many other articel in the wikipedia ...i really can´t understand why ...this "deletion-war" is going on right now..this is definitle AGAINST the spread of knowledge...i write for the wikpedia for several years now....somethign like this i have never experienced...i am confused.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo (talk • contribs) 19:00, October 4, 2008
    • Knowledge (XXG) is not meant to be a compendium of all knowledge about everything in the world. Notability is considered an important attribute of the subjects of Knowledge (XXG) articles. I saw your article and have doubts about its notability; your article didn't give me any reason to view it as any more notable than thousands of other research projects or meta-search engines in the world. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Change below Delete The problem is simple, thousands of people are working on "the ultimate search engine". Please refer to Google's stock price over the last 10 years for a reason. That this is called Harvester (get it, it takes answers from other search engines, how original) or 42 (the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything) is meaningless. Has anyone (that passes wp:rs) written anything interesting about them? If not, then this particular project, one of thousands, isn't particularly notable enough to be listed whilst the others (sadly) are not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • i can´t believe what i am reading. a single person. i am sure Mio of projects are not worthy for you..that does not mean that you have the right to delete it...some people might be interested and are....although this is not up to discussion...the word harvester comes from "bioinformatic harvester" http://harvester.fzk a bioinfomatic search engine...used (by the way by 1000s of scientist every day...we have been asked for a tool to to the same iframe trick for normal search engines..harvester42 runs on machine 42 ...as i said i...
    • What "single person" are you talking about? This is a forum for discussion in which as many people as are interested will work toward a consensus over the next five days. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • can you please give me a contact person..a higher admin maybe? to settle this? if contributed a lot to wikipedia in the last years....and NEVEr exerienced such an aggressive behaviour...AGAIN...it is NOT what YOU think about a project...there are really other people on this planet...really :-D Ivo (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a forum for settling this. This is normal Knowledge (XXG) procedure in cases like this. Please stop the drama and indignation. They won't help you in the slightest and will turn people off, which won't be in your favor. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Please show us a link to these other people who think the project is so important, preferably if they pass the policy of reliable sources here at Knowledge (XXG), and we will be glad to change our opinions. You aren't special, you have to offer citations like the rest of us do when creating articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • :-) can i just say..please go ahead and do whatever you think is right....yeas you are right..i am not special...sorry for trying to convince..damn i made a mistake .-) ...have fun..and don´t be evil :-) Ivo (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Are you paying the guilt card? Even after I explained to you (on your talk page) that making your case in terms of Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines can be effective but drama won't be? Well, you still have nearly five days to come forth with suitable evidence of notability, if it exists and should you choose to make a constructive case for keeping the article. If you can, why won't you? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I think what he is saying is being said in good faith. I think he just stepped back a little bit and realized that he was trying to wp:OWN the article previous, and now realizes our efforts were not personal. We all have been guilty at least once of trying to own an article we created. He is saying "yeas you are right" so let's not bite his head off. Someone may yet provide sources anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I note that the same editor has contributed a couple of articles on other search engine type things with similar names. Now, if one of those is NOTABLE, maybe this one is too, by some kind of association? Or maybe none of them are? At least one looks like it has external refs, at least. MadScot (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I just tried several different search approaches myself and came up with zilch... maybe I would have had more luck if I used Harvester42. If existance could be assertained and notability shown a redirect would have sufficed. My bad. And I have modified my position accordingly. And a note to User:Ivo... Knowledge (XXG) is about verification... making certain that what is within these pages can be proven per WP:V, whether we like the information or not. Schmidt, 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete tried what you just suggested, with no better results, except pages in their lab site. . When there are some sources, no reason not to try again. But, meanwhile, you say you've got an important bioinformatics search engine that's in wide use--and i suppose that therefore might have references for it--so why not try an article on that one? It could even include a sentence to this more experimental version. DGG (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP :-) Ivo (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Harvester42 use the "bioinformatic harvester" methods (see "bioinformatic harvester" project (try this one on google). comment: so i just realized ..if something exists on Google..IT exist. if something is NOT on Google it doesn´t ...AUTSCH ...:-) ok added the original "harvester reference paper" and some updates.. ah by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/ScienceDaily) one of the fines news sources for scientific informtion on the web with lots of awards and stars...not much of an article , but more than worthy to add....
  • Changed to KEEP now I tell you one damn thing, you are persistant! This is actually a good thing. It is easy to just complain but you went and found some very hard to find references on a topic that is very difficult to source out, and at the end of the day, I think that you have changed the article enough to clearly make it notable enough for inclusion. My original assumptions were really off base, and I stand corrected. I would hope others who voted to delete would please look at the sources. Still not the heaviest sourced article, but not every topic can have easy to quote text from the New York Times. Great job. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. For all the edits that have occurred, the only changes I see are (1) the addition of more specific information about software, which doesn't affect the question about notability; (2) a literature section that lists two papers by the project team, again not pertinent to the question of notability; and (3) a reflist that you added and that is empty because the article has no inline references. I see no more indication of notability than there was when I posted the AfD notice. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The literature is enough as it lists the entire Harvester concept, published on a u.s. government website, pubmed.gov (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) which tells me it isn't a home spun "better" search engine. The empty ref section was added only because I also said in the article talk that he needed to work in some inline citations, just a format issue, not notability. I am not saying it doesn't have ISSUES, I am just saying it has enough notability to dodge a bullet in AFD and be tagged for more work. This kind of stuff is very hard to source to begin with, and one solid source from a US government site (on a german search engine technology) is enough to establish notability, to me and is 100x better than what existed before. If you don't agree, that is ok, too. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It's "published" on that government website in the same sense that every website indexed by Google is "published" by Google. They're passing through the results of a search for academic papers that leads to this. The real citation should be what's shown at either NCBI or Science Direct: the article was published in the journal Methods in Enzymology, volume 404, pages 19-26. I haven't check the WP guidelines for academic papers accepted for publication by academic journals—publishing a paper you've submitted isn't the same thing as reporting independently on your work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You seem to have misunderstood the Pubmed.gov site. It contains databases of millions of papers from certain subject areas, it does not indicate that the US government have taken any notice of anything, or published anything. From the site: "Through PubMed, you can search 16,000,000 biomedical journal abstracts. PubMed Central is a database that contains whole research articles from over 300 research journals. "Yobmod (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Am i being blind, or are there still no third party independant sources in the article? The papers are inherently NOT independant, as they are written by the inventors. Pubmed.gov is just a database site, listing all the papers from the journals it covers - it lends no notability to those papers, any more than being found on google means a website is notable.Yobmod (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is why I myself think a merge would work now as its existance has been verified. If moved over to Search engine it has context and can always be pulled out for an independent article if notability is sourced. Schmidt, 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very poor article that contains nothing of value which is not already present on other articles such as Knowledge Management. It has been marked for improvement for some time and while some citations have been inserted no improvements have been made to the content. Further the one editor who seems interested has inserted long and meaningless use cases. In general this seems to be a article about one aspect of one author's (Skyrme) work with a few other quotes that mention knowledge or networking thrown in for good measure. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • You could be right but it certainly isn't clear from the current state of the article. Could you could hack the article back and try to make it into a coherent stub article explaining what the core subject is, how it is notable and what distinguishes it from the other related subjects? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • improve We should distinguish between two discussion topics:
    • Is Knowledge networking a own topic or part of Knowledge management? Knowledge networking is a separate topic: check the 211.000 Google-search results of "Knowledge networking" just for the English term. Check the related 137 Knowledge (XXG) articles like Trade Knowledge Network or the more than 9700 search results within Knowledge (XXG) for knowledge networking or all the books cited in the article Knowledge networking. Knowledge management is defined as: "Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what it knows, and how it knows it. Knowledge networking supports many of these KM tasks". Nevertheless, knowledge networking includes topics, which are not directly related to knowledge management: e.g. the social aspect of Social computing, the Innovation management aspect, the Technology Management aspect like technology breeding to mention a few.
    • Is the current article about Knowledge networking good enough? No, it is not good enough and needs to be improved. It was written by a student as I do not have the time to write one but I need a wikipedia article on this topic in order to refer to it. My understanding is that wikipedia is a community project, where everybody is invited to improve an article which is not good enough. I understand that it is important from the very beginning, that no wrong information or no unverifyable information is covered in the initial version of an article. The proposal by Snowded to start with a sandpit and write a perfect article is not applicable for me as I do not have the time to manage a community project on this topic. Everybody is welcome to to do it and we got already valuable contributions from people we do not know. If you delete the article completely, you will have no information about this important topic in Knowledge (XXG). I wonder if this is better than the current first draft. I have also difficulties to understand the reason to delete all the use cases without any notice. Is this the way how the wikipedians should communicate. Use cases are a best practice in defining requirements and the style of use cases should be as direct as possible. I know that it is unusual for a Wiki-page to use the direct "I was..." style, but it is appropriate for use cases. Is it desired to have nothing unusual within Knowledge (XXG)? For my understanding, deletion is no solution. Heisss (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
* Comment. You have had months to improve it with virtually zero activity. Social Computing is already in the Knowledge Management article (and could be extended) and would certainly not be defined by Knowledge networking. You mention it here for the first time! The fact that you define it by Skyrme and Probst, places it firmly in the KM space of the mid 1990s and all the language (and jargon) comes from that period. The use cases were dire, they read like bullet points from a consultancy sales pitch. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as a briefer article. This afd is essentially an attempt to force improvements of a very low quality article that could not be effected through normal editing. Attempts to do so have repeatedly failed. Most recent there was the revert of Anthere's removal of a list of see alsos to several dozen equally over-expansive Knowledge (XXG) articles on very closely related concepts (which at the moment remains in the article). There was also the revert of her removal of a long section of "Use cases"-- a method of presentation in a didactic style appropriate if anywhere to in-service management education, not the least suitable to an encyclopedia. (It has just been removed again, and not yet replaced, but it is still being defended. The attempt to justify it above shows the difficulties that have been encountered.) Based on the comments above, an editor with significant COI seems to be admitting having asked a student to write the article for him. We need a better way of breaking OWNership than deletion, but in extreme cases like this I do not see any present way of getting the appropriate community attention. A RfC on an apparently esoteric topic like this often will not work very well, though it should have been tried. So why do I say keep at all--- (1) because it is a real topic of study. True, there is an unfortunate tendency perhaps spearheaded by some publishing companies and academic departments to proliferate the terminology of almost identical subjects in management related fields, using the currently fashionable jargon of information science. It's not nonsense exactly, but rather unproductive fragmentation and duplication. One new field per journal, one new speciality per professor. But still this one is a genuine subject. (2) because this isn't actually the way we are supposed to do things, & it shouldn't be encouraged. I have for long had my eye on this group of articles, and only hesitated for fear I would not have sufficient support. Most of the walled garden should be merged, some eliminated--a guide to the necessary work is that list of see alsos. DGG (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
* Comment: there are just too many KM related articles as you have probably seen. Best to focus efforts onto creating a couple of good ones which can then spawn additional ones when the material is mature enough. If there is to be an article on social computing, linked in et al, then this is the wrong title. A session of merging and elimination (possible a task force on the field) would have my complete support - great idea. Keeping this article would be a retrograde step which would enhance "fragmentation and duplication" to use your words! --Snowded TALK 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't claim to know very much about this stuff but it all seems a bit nebulous and maybe different people have different names for more or less the same ideas. This could lead to a lot of unnecessary similar articles. If it is clear that there really is a separate subject here then I would advise the people who think so to boldly hack the article down to a stub which clearly and concisely set out what this separate subject actually is. Failing that, a redirect to a a better article on the same subject would seem reasonable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*Reply. Its my field (I hold a three visiting Chairs in KM) although that doesn't give me any special rights here but it informs my comments. I'd happily accept a redirect to Knowledge Management where the valid content of this article is already largely covered. If a stub makes sense then it should be under another name, knowledge networking is a tired concept from the 1990s. (which means deleting it). Actually I really like DGG's idea to get all of the "KM" related material into some form of task force, list the current articles and set some action plans. There are no good ones at the moment. Also its a constant war to prevent people setting up new promotional pages or pet theory pages and linking to the more popular articles. If that is on I can probably recruit others into the WIkipedia to get engaged. --Snowded TALK 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
just want to mention that if it was notable in the past, it remains notable for our purposes, and should get a short article. DGG (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It was never notable in the past. Yes the word "networking" is used in the literature, but it was never and has never been a distinct field. It's a generic word used in articles. --Snowded TALK 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
agreed on that; just wanted to remind people about that factor.DGG (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of British university Pro Vice-Chancellors and Treasurers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't say anything. It promises to say something and then is completely devoid of useful information. Either put the information in there right now or get rid of it. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not sure why this information is even useful. A list of chancellors and vice-chancellors and of heads of Oxbridge colleges is manifestly worthwhile, by pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers, while meriting their own articles, don't seem to me to need a list. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

we do not delete articles for not being improved. If your only complaant is that nobody has worked on it, that's easy enough for your to fix. We delete them because they cannot be improved. DGG (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we don't delete articles that are in need of improvement, but in this case, the article, despite it's paragraph of text, is completely free of content. Its deletion does not preclude the recreation of an article that actually contains content. If it were even a partial list, I could support keeping. This article arguably could have been deleted with {{db-nocontent}}, so delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, does somebody want to create the article? (Since creating it from the start is effectively what needs to be done, despite the introductory paragraph.) Is it an article that is worth creating? Does anybody want to know who are the pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers of British universities?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AmritNath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obvious piece of OR not too mention nearly incomprehensible. Woland (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Inverter Drive Supermarket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable company that fails to establish notability (company itself is but two years old) Eddie.willers (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Walking away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

dicdef covered by wiktionary:walk away from. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since nominated by vandal. Hut 8.5 17:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

National Gazetteer (for Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is unproven. PehC346 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. AKRadecki 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hadyn place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax. Can find no references to support the topic. No ghits on either Hadyn Place or Vladimir Provlov. If he single-handedly won the war for the Russians, seems like he'd be mentioned in a history somewhere. Fileponi Ravioli? -- Mufka 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosie Vela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails wp:music and WP:ENTERTAINER, the only footnote is to a page that doesn't mention the subject, so no reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp. Prod removed without indicating notability or providing any wp:rs. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t16:09z 16:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bai Ying Pai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single school, no references, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Channel Chasers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Crookedhook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - the only coverage is from the Caledon Citizen, a community newspaper. Possibly an up and coming act. But the band hasn't arrived yet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NM. I've made several attempts to simply redirect the song to the appropriate album, but many users always break that redirect and add text that doesn't assert the song's notability. DiverseMentality 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete - "The Greatest" is the next main single, not this... this is less notable than that, and it doesn't even have an article CloversMallRat (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep - "The Greatest" may be the next main single, but it hasn't even charted on any charts, unlike "Hello Heartbreak" which has and I don't think the record company would release the song as a single via iTunes if the song wasn't going to be released.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus001 (talk • contribs)

  • I feel that this page is very important and shout be kept. It has been confirmed as her 2nd single as long as the greatest. The single is having more air play and has already charted on the billboard charts! The track has been released and Michelle has confirmed on her official myspace that she will be shooting the video early october and would like some idea's. This is major important and if it does be deleted it will only be have to be made again in the next few weeks. Please keep it, It took me a very long time and alot of people want to know this information! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.163.87 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Charted only on Sales charts which are generally not enough. No sources, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It passes WP:NM per "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts"', in which it has charted highly on Hot Dance Singles Sales. So I vote Keep. -24.92.46.22 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment re that Single Sales chart "Often, songs that become number one on this chart, do not even chart on the Hot 100." per the Wp article. So I'm having difficulty thinking that's good enough for notability. The music charts are so fragmented by genre and distribution that it's hard to give credence to the smaller charts. MadScot (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator withdrawal and WP:SNOW keep (non-administrative closure). – RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't Copy That Floppy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable,suggest merger Fireaxe888 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11). Alexf 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bike-pure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No matter how I spell it (BikePure, Bike-pure, Bike-Pure, etc) I can't find anything that makes this organisation appear notable.    SIS  14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)    SIS  14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bike-Pure I, as a new user to Knowledge (XXG) and surprised and delighted that someone read the article, regardless of its nature. Could you please assist; Advice on how I could improve the entry would be gratefully received. Bike-Pure is a just, independant organisation which will hopefully assist in eliminating Drugs from Professional cycling.

Currently they have 142 of the 701 top level riders signed up. A long way to go, but everyone (690 members in 12 countries) is doing it free and out of love for their sport. Thanks.--Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylesrants (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Is trying to end drug taking in sport, and identifying the cheats not a noble cause? What size do we need to grow to before becoming notable? --Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't care if it's a noble cause or how big it is, it matters about notability. See WP:CORP. You need to add reliable sources that show notability. Your article is also an advertisement because you are involved with the organization. Schuym1 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for (obviously) annoying anyone. I didn't know the deletion was incorrect as it does "edit from this point" We have 13,210 members. All very much care to the significance of the body.--Mylesrants (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No one is judging the organization, it is just Knowledge (XXG) has thousands of new articles each day. 10% are pure vandalism, about 1/2 of the rest are improper. There are rules and policies that we all follow. Not every company (no matter how worthwhile their goals) has an article here. All the talk of "notability" and such are being compared to the rules here, not in the real world. Oh, and be careful when deleting and editing. Deleting an article off of AFD (or a speedy tag) when you are the author tends to make those of us that work hard to clean the place up get very snippy. And heavy handed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

has anyone any advice for the retention of the organisations entry? assistance would be much appreciated--Mylesrants (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mylesrants, the mere fact that you are employed by this company and have made an article promoting it is a violation of WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Doc StrangeLogbook 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Mylesrants, you need to demonstrate the notability of this subject using independent third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
To expand: you need newspaper articles that talk about the organization, reputable websites (not blogs) that do the same. You have to cite this in the article. Knowledge (XXG) is pretty cut and dry, it doesn't matter how big the organization is, or how nice the goals, or how true the statements are. I mean it, those are meaningless here. All that matters to keep an article here is that the subject matter is 1. Notable (read wp:n to see what that means) and 2. Verfiable (wp:v) using 3. Reliable sources.(wp:rs). Most of the other issues can be dealt with or fixed. Here, notability means that the media is talking about you, or you have done something so worthwhile, it affected a lot of people. Citations just prove it. Find an article about a similar organization, one that is written well (ie: no major tags, 1 year old or more) and see what they did RIGHT. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And to add, study Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). Schmidt, 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion relating to merging, moving, or redirecting can continue on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cognoscenti (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources for this that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or move as suggested below by Emperor. :) BOZ (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thr33 Ringz. –Juliancolton 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Freeze (T-Pain song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Confirmed single of a future album, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:NOTE. Previous redirects were declined. Amalthea 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Antoinette Kyuchukova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. The only external (non university related) reference is Times on line which just lists her as the student coordinator in a fact sheet. Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gunston Jolly Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite getting lost and appearing in the papers, this dog is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This story is not. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vilnius Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no third-party sources that mention this supposedly planned metro as being a real project. The external link in the article goes to vilniausmetro.lt, which states that “Vilnius Metro is a non-governmental organization that is popularizing the idea of a metro in the capital of Lithuania. The city of Vilnius does not yet have a metro; our goal is to educate the populace about the benefits of metro systems.” As long as no reliable, third-party source supports the claim that this is a real project (and not some NGO's vision), Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article about it per Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability. —Kjetil r (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, a speedy deletion was proposed here, as well as in es.wikipedia and no.wikipedia (the Spanish and Norwegian articles seem to be translations of the English article). --Kjetil r (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delfi.lt is a major Lithuanian media outlet. Novickas (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Other info per is-it-a-serious-proposal rather than a single NGO's vision, it was specifically mentioned by Vilnius city municipality: "A new and modern means of transportation to be introduced into Vilnius City in the near future is considered now. That is the fast tramway, the routes of which shall connect the main city districts with the centre and workplaces." . These are reliable sources, now in the article. Novickas (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC) WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit articles about major proposals; rather stating that "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This proposal is documented in reliable sources. Novickas (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Crystal and even the keep notes it is "proposed". Fails WP:N. Schmidt, 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it is a real proposal, seriously advocated by former Mayor. There were many studies, proposals, presentations, etc. The mayor advocated for a tramway and even created the company that would be in charge of the structure. However, that proposal did not pass and the company was liquidated. So now activists chase after a metro. It seems unlikely that any of it will pass -- it would cost too much and the benefits are not so clear. But it is a very notable debate in Lithuania, going back to 2001 or 2002. You can find heaps of newspaper articles about it (in Lithuanian, of course). Even if it does not pass, I see no reason to delete it. We are keeping a failed US bill Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Renata (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • comment. And the current mayor? Does the idea stand any chance to reach, say, budget hearings? Does anyone now (parties, politicans etc.) take it seriously? Are the Vilnius residents happy to shovel $5,000 each for something that will take 10 years to build... etc. The article makes an impression that it's as dead as a dead fish. NVO (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because it's further away than Kansas doesn't mean it's NN. Vilnius has been arguing the pros and cons of paying for a half-decent metro longer than Bristol has. Whether they do or don't, the argument itself is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in the topic, not the title, so I couldn't object to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. So who do we see to have the title changed to better reflect the content of the article? Once the Vilinius Metro is actually built this article can become a major portion of the new version which will be created under this current name. Schmidt, 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Should probably be called "Vilnius Tram Project", since that is what the city's presentation to UNESCO called it , along with the Scott Wilson Group ; they did the financing feasibility study. Vilnius Metro seems to be name of the supporting NGO only. Who can do it - Renata, above, is an admin, or maybe it doesn't need an admin, just someone versed in the procedures, once there is a consensus to keep and rename. Novickas (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism and per the consensus here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edwin's hometown(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy got declined, PROD was added, but this "upcoming film" doesn't even appear to be announced anywhere. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly WP:CRYSTAL    SIS  13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This looks like a good candidate for a merge but that's matter for editorical discretion. There is no clear consensus to delete this as it stands and the sourcing there is is not addressed in the discussion Spartaz 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

No assert of notability. Tagged for Notability since September 2007! It consists mainly of plot. A fictional character who appeared in only in 1 of the 7 seasons (so far) of a TV show. No reason to convert to a redirect a minor character like that. Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge to an article such as Recurring and minor characters in 24. Along with all the other characters. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ 16:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
How? Can you find any references proving that this character is notable, not only in the series'context? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Berman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A most likely non-notable person. A Google News search and a Google search brings up nothing about this Jeff Berman. Schuym1 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Desadarium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bands are a bit outside my area of expertise, but this one certainly appears to fail the requirements of WP:BAND. Not signed to a label, no commercial releases, 46 discrete Google hits without a reliable source in the lot, and zero Google News hits. Their "official page" is at Myspace. (And for anyone who might wonder, desadarium is not Latin for "regret".) Deor (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The article's been around for more than a year, so I figured it was worth an AfD rather than a speedy. Deor (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Philippe as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stripe-backed Grayling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am a little concerned that I could not find any sources for this species, perhaps it is a hoax? If a reliable source is found then this AfD can be closed as keep immediately. --Commander Keane (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I had exactly the same concern when I tagged it as {{unreferenced}}: I get zero (non-WP) hits in Google Web and Google Scholar, but the creator has also contributed a couple of legitimate articles, so I didn't just slap a {{hoax}} on it. I agree that if no verifiable references are found, it needs to go, even if true. Hqb (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are provided. The article claims that this is a critically endangered species, but it's not one of the three Hipparchia species listed in the IUCN Red List. In a cursory search, I was unable to establish that any graylings are native to Micronesia. Deor (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've informed the article's author of this discussion. Deor (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While grayling (not stripe-backed grayling) is an endagered speies of trout, one might have thought there might have been something out there. As A "butterfly" the grayling species occupies Brittain and Europe. Interesting combination of two unrelated facts to make something sound almost plausable. Will tag this as G3 speedy hoax. Schmidt, 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunny Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I searched for reliable sources, I saw that the attempted murder is notable, but not one of the twins by themselves. Schuym1 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

List of defecation postures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I already redirected one of the articles that was a couple of sentences from Diet and cancer (no merge was needed). Original author's justification for creating the articles was since we have articles such as list of sex positions etc then we should also have this kind of articles which violates WP:OTHERSTUFF. As a stand alone article, doesn't seem to be a notable enough topic with content that isn't already better covered in other articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

* Added 2 more I added the two articles. The one is simply a cut and paste from the cancer article, again with rationale that other "similar" articles about sex exist. Please note that "under construction" tags were added AFTER the afd process began. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Snowball Keep . NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Beating up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COMMENT I have turned it into a disambiguation page. Please renew your comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. AKRadecki 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ozark Mountain Meats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks reliable sources that verify this company's notability. A google search did not reveal sources to me. Prod removed by creator, whose username is the same as the name of this company's marketing company, indicating a probable conflict of interest. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Change to redirect via wp:bold and wp:snow (3 in row) - Non-admin closure. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company that went bust after 1 unsuccessful release. Their domain no longer exists either.    SIS  11:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's a wide variety of opinions and some consensus that this article shouldn't be here, but none as to what specifically to do with it. Discussion on moving, redirecting, merging, etc. can continue at Talk:Pickering Defense. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickering Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a very rare chess opening, 1.e4 h5. The ChessBase database of four million + games has only 42 game examples. Although there are other dubious (e.g. Latvian Gambit) and poor (e.g. Marshall Defense) openings, these have at least been played often, sometimes as a fair attempt to surprise an opponent, and have been analyzed in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and other chess publications. That is not true of this line, there are virtually no Black players would play 1.e4 h5? except as a silly joke, since the move 1...h5 has no redeeming features. (We have some other silly joke openings as well, but at least they are covered in the Oxford Companion to Chess.) Apart from these silly joke game examples, the only non-wiki analysis I have seen of this is here, where it is adorned with a skull (meaning "don't play it") along with the words "never seen". Looking at the table of contents at Amazon, even Eric Schiller's large collection of opening horrors called Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't seem to cover this line. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The Wikibooks article lists BCO2 and MCO14. I don't have those editions, but it is not in BCO1, MCO13 or MCO15, under any of those names. And it is not listed in ECO1. Bubba73 (talk), 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought I could take a look at MCO14, and I found that 1...h5 is mentioned... in a way... in the introduction to the chapter "Unusual King's Pawn Defenses" where he covers 1...a6, 1...b6, and 1...g5. De Firmian writes :"Other moves, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they are simply too bad and need no discussion.". I'm not sure if De Firmian going out of his way to tell us that something is non-notable ironically increases that subject's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to King's Pawn Opening where it already has context. No need to have it by itself. Schmidt, 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to King's Pawn Opening. Rarely played but worthy of inclusion. Alexius08 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Users Sjakkalle and SyG accurately summarise this article's notability, i.e. it doesn't have any. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Keep That it's a bad idea doesn't mean it isn't worth an article. This is not a chess instruction book, covering only the good ones. If it's notoriously lousy, it's notable for that reason. Something widely used as a bad example can be notable.(if it is in fact so used)DGG (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I agree with almost every word you say here. The disagreement is on whether this opening is indeed "notoriously lousy", or just plain "lousy". There does indeed exist an opening which is notoriously lousy, called the Damiano Defense, which is used in several publications as an example of bad opening play. For that opening, I would agree with you, the Damiano is indeed notable. The AFD reason here is that this opening lacks coverage in any chess literature, and since the volume of chess literature consists of thousands of books, many, if not most, of them devoted to various opening lines, that is saying something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the Damiano is the "poster child" of bad openings, and there are sources of information about it. I can't find anything on this opening in the standard references, not even a name. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a suitable reference is found. The article says it is called "Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense". I can't find a reference for any of those except The Oxford Companion to Chess has "Desprès Opening", but that is 1. h4, not 1.e4 h5. Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to King's Pawn Game, adding the details of its nonusefulness to the list of possible responses by black. I could find no sources in Google News / Archive for the three alternate games given (Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense), but the term is sourced. If there are meaningful sources to be added, the article can be recreated as a standalone in the future. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to King's Pawn Game. While I initially thought the subject had enough notability as an opening chess move, it appears that it's so rarely/poorly used as to merit little discussion. The one dubious source for 'pickering defense' mentioned on google scholar is clearly not enough to establish notability for its own article.Themfromspace (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. AKRadecki 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Grexy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Urbandictionary-based article with invalid references for a slang term which appears to be in extremely limited use, if in use at all. SMC (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tonya Harding. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Eckardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although I am reluctant to put this on AfD, as I suggested merging this to Tonya Harding, another user suggesting either PRODding or AfDing this if this article fails to meet WP:BIO, which I feel it fail to do anyway as he states in the talk section that the person concerned is deceased therefore, any BLP concern does not apply Jay Pegg (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Exactly where to merge can be hashed out on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge somewhere in the discussion of Niven's work. Unless I am mistaken, the notability in Niven's series is by far the greater? I do not see that this really needs a separate article, though of course it should have a redirect. It should also be mentioned in "pleasure center" as part of a section on fictional uses of the concept. DGG (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I agree with you that it should only be a mention for pleasure center.. The proper merge and redirect is to Niven's work. DGG (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious and blatant attack page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rein croll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems obviously vandalism, only related google hit I found is http://nl.netlog.com/go/directory/people/c/8/33.html Cyfal (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of backup software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hopeless. Ghost is imaging software, and none of the ex-Veritas or Legato products are mentioned. Virtually all commercial backup software has most of the arbitrarily chosen features listed (e.g. compression, automation), and the list of platforms is hopelessly incomplete and does not indicate the things which are actually important in selecting backup software, such as vss integration, host agent availablility for AIX, Solaris and the like, VMware support / integration (and I guess VCB), data deduplication, distributed operation, delegated user privileges and self-service restore, management of multiple recovery point and recovery time objectives, management reporting and analysis, media ageing and rotation - in fact it's close to impossible to come up with a table comparing backup products which is not classified by price band and market, or hopelessly sparse and unreadable. The list is also unsourced. I think this is more like a school project scratchpad than an article. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reason given is an improvement argument, not a deletion reason. These complaints, as well as sourcing issues, can be addressed - why not give the article a chance, or do it yourselves? SMC (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Consumer guide material, not encyclopedia material. Drawing up these comparisons seems to be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete wow, this will be a magnet for original research and personal points of view. Impossible to properly source for "comparisons", only features. Regardless of how old the article is, the premise is fatally flawed and can never pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE - PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We literally have hundreds of such comparison on Knowledge (XXG). Many software comparisons in Knowledge (XXG) have survived deletion. I think the only reason why this may not is because it is essentially a very new stub. There is no reason that these need to be based on original research--there are WP:RS that describe the features of products & even WP:RS comparisons that may be used as a basis for the article. Can those calling for deletion please say whether they would support recreation of this article, assuming that it was more comprehensive in the products and features that it included and assuming that it was properly sourced? --Karnesky (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply In general, I am against "comparison" articles of current products. Comparing the tactics of two war generals, ok. Comparing historical events, ok. Comparing products is not the same, and leads to what I complained of. If you want to nominate other comparison type articles that use current products, I will be happy to vote delete on those as well. I don't have the time to dig them all up myself. But just because other stuff exists, that doesn't justify this article staying. There are many problems, such as "what features do you list as being compared", which is indescriminate or original research, before you even start writing. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Here, I found for you, go ahead an nominate it: Comparison_of_handheld_game_consoles. VG ☎ 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • This article isn't the same (by ANY stretch of the imagination), and being a smart ass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smart ass. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
          • So, what makes it different? This is a good faith question. Perhaps we can draft some guidelines for acceptable comparisons, like we have for lists. VG ☎ 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Ok, i will bite. The console article covers existing AND historical hardware, which adds a great deal of context and information that can't be found in the individual articles. The console article compares things like RAM, media, screen size, etc. which are physical traits shared by all the items and not subject to personal opinion. The software article (like any software article) contains software features, which are not universal across all brands. (ie: if brand $x has a feature, do you list it and show that brand $x is the only one that has it? What about $y feature? WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT FEATURE $Z!!111 I can see it now, NPOV issues out the wazoo.). There are a lot more consoles to list and compare, further justifying the article. The software article ALSO will always be out of date as new versions come out or are discontinued, while the console article is simply added to, meaning once the hardware is obsolete, the information isn't. This isn't true with the software. In the backup software instance, the information has zero historical importance, even if it is WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL to some. In short, they are really really different because one is hardware, one is software, so you really can't compare the two article types. That doesn't take in the consideration WP:OTHERSTUFF. I would be against an article comparing Linux and Windows for the same reason. I haven't taken the time (and won't) to hunt them all down, but will !vote delete when I see them. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V; possible spam magnet, etc. Biruitorul 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, update and expand. The difficulties raised above are only editing questions. We d include such comparisons for notable classes of software. What a consumer guide does in addition, and we do not, is make recommendations and include ephemeral matter such as prices and where to buy the products. . DGG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sophie (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software; contested PROD. No substantial third party coverage on this subject is in evidence.  Sandstein  09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Coomera Houseboats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by COI user, Coomerahouseboat (talk · contribs) and was tagged with speedy but speedy removed. Article's subject has not received coverage and significant discussion in multiple sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted under CSD A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gesmites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable (speedy deleted by creator), no reliable sources as requierd by wp:v, possible conflict of interest, not written in an encyclopedic tone - possibly a joke. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:08z 09:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Introducing: Loose Grip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, parent artist also fails WP:MUSIC Bullzeye 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Boy Gone Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is on an album by a non-notable redlinked artist. Matty (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears the editors changed the album article to the artist article, so this probably qualifies for db-band. However, on the odd chance that it doesn't i'd still vote the article be deleted as it is now on a non-notable 16 year old artist with no g-hits that even hint at notability. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V. Matty (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was redirected to Anthropological criminology (the same exact topic, but adds modern theory and evaluation to Race and crime's anachronistic racist history) on August 31 per discussion whose last two comments were on July 14 and August 30. An editor who did not take part in this discussion has restored the page. There is no need for both of these articles; Race and crime is a POV fork at which several editors (or socks?) have tried to reinstate a series of statistics in violation of wp:PSTS ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Knowledge (XXG), but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."), and which even those who want the stats in the article claim have proven unanalyzable by professionals . Furthermore, Race and crime is an absolute wp:coatrack, at which racist history and unintelligible stats are covered rather than the huge and multifaceted sociological treatise one might expect with the title "Race and crime". NJGW (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note about previous AFD While the previous AfD was keep, it was emphatically keep and clean-up (emphasis in the original). Here is the version of the article before that AfD, which is basically the statistics mentioned several times here and too many clean-up tags. In the 1.5 years since the AfD, all that has happened is that the history from Anthropological criminology has been inserted and the statistics deleted and reinserted several times (to be fair, some POV and OR junk has been removed as well). Clean-up does not mean take info from another article to replace the unsalvageable, and thus the terms of the previous AfD have not been met. NJGW (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt with redirect to Anthropological criminology, if that's possible. Delete and salt if not. The article has long been a coatrack for racist pseudoscience, and the proper article deals with the topic properly. Verbal chat 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
How is this article a wp:coatrack? Looking through the history when statistics, such as imprisonment rate by race were included they were scrubbed out. Where is the wealth of statistical evidence that it ignores to meet the requirements of being a coatrackZzmang (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a coatrack because a set of admittedly unintelligible statistics keep getting paraded instead of any meaningful content. NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a bad page, not a wp:coatrack, if you spent as much time improving the article as you do censoring it the situation might be different. Zzmang (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep of course. Yes it is a topic of racism, but a perfectly valid one. AfD isn't for article cleanup. Anthropological criminology is a related topic. A possible merge can be discussed off AfD, without all the excitement (zomg, the article discusses racism!). The result of the 1st AfD was "keep and cleanup". Well, what are you waiting for? Slap cleanup tags on it and start cleaning it up. Dragging it to AfD every few months isn't a substitute for that. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment No need for merge - a simple redirect would suffice, and this a suitable place to discuss it. Verbal chat 10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. "Anthropological criminology" isn't about race in particular, and the article you're trying so hard to get deleted has some valid discussion of historical notions on race and crime in particular. Anyway, this is not a discussion for AfD but one for article talk. If I was calling the shots on this, I would speedily close it as an invalid re-submission of an AfD already concluded with "keep". --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The merge is appropriate specifically to Anthropological Criminology#Modern times. The only information which might be moved (though it's two sentences could use some expansion and caveats) is Race and crime#Recent literature. As you say, if there is to be an article which remains, it should be a sociological treatment of racism... which it is not at the moment, so what ever there is now can be moved/removed to avoid NPOV. NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, to dab: the last AfD was 18 months ago. Issuing another AfD after 18 months isn't unreasonable, considering that consensus can very well change over such a long period of time.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
reply there is no "sociology, theories, etc." present in the current article. All there is is your same criminal phrenology and statistics which (according to a person who wants them included, and claims to have researched thoroughly) have never been analyzed by pros in an NPOV manner (seems kind of troublesome to expect lay persons to do what pros can't). BTW, this is a new and different nomination, and will be judged on it's own merits. Here's the July 14 merge proposal that you're having a hard time finding. NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
comment how can you reconcile racist and NPOV? NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
you consider statistics racist, so under that definition it's easy to reconcile statistics and NPOVZzmang (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pardon??? Where have I called statistics racist? The article appears written and in some cases supported with racist intent, and I'd like to know how racist intent can be reconciled with NPOV, the point being that removing POV statements and articles is not censorship. I'm not sure what this is a difficult point for you to understand. NJGW (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
So does that mean you think that "biased" pages should be censored, even if that bias is merely presenting stats and theories in a NPOV? Zzmang (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Biased" pages should have POV statements and sources removed, and only contain NPOV material. Perhaps, if "biased" opinions are notable, then they can be discussed as being "biased". This is covered at wp:NPOV if you'd like to know more. Please don't confuse censorship with neutrality, reliability and verifiability. NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't what I was meaning. I was saying WP:CENSORED isn't meant for stuff like this; it's meant for articles where there would be severe social objections. I did not mean coatrack articles and biased forks were subject to censorship (rather, they should be fixed to remove the bias or, failing that, removed outright). I apologize if my wording made it seem otherwise. -Jéské 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one confusing NPOV NJGW, people are saying this page is biased because they feel it has the potential to enhance bias about race. The reason this page is so terrible is because some of the very POV pushing editors calling for it's deletion are the same who have consistently sabotouged this page by deleting any statistics with false accusations (or simple misunderstandings) of synth and original research. This page is one of the most important pages dealing with criminology on wikipedia. Want to talk about systematic bias - wikipedia doesn't even have a page on Black on Black Crime. Zzmang (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unlike arguments about synth, OR, coatrack and Bias at least the premises are true for your argument. Your reasoning however is wrong, and so is the conclusion. Black on Black crime is notable by being the leading cause of death of a demographic (young black males) and has attracted significant media attention. Zzmang (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree for several reasons. 1. Inner-city might be a codeword for black, but black on black crime occurs in other areas (aside from "inner-cities") at high rates as well. 2. Blacks of other ages are also disproportionately victimized. 3. Black on Black crime is the notable and verifiable name for the phenomena.Zzmang (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

keep This topic is cogent to sociology.Gooogen (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Virtual Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable school and badly written article Anshuk (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) And the article looks like it's Start Class. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Colors Insulting to Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Anshuk (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard King High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Can't CSD a school.. Anshuk (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Your efforts on the article will be greatly appreciated. But with some respect to the nominator, it is currently only a single line. We can't completely blame User:Anshuk for material he/she isn't aware of outside Knowledge (XXG). --Jh12 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The nominator did not say delete on basis of being just a one-liner, (perhaps citing Notadirectory), but rather said it was non-notable. Such a statement requires prior research. AfD is not a research service. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the nominator mentions that it's a "one liner article" right after the first response... Anyway, I can understand both views, but calling the editor "Nuts" just seemed a bit harsh. Regards, --Jh12 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinoy Dream Academy 2. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Liezel Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why it should be DELETEDor REDIRECTED: Notable for one event only, that is Pinoy Dream Academy. Although take note that we can make articles to winners in the competition according to WP:MUSIC A9 which says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". She has been eliminated on the finale night but is not a runner up according to the show's policy. The article even failed to say why is it notable. The article also has many unverified claims like she can do whistle register, not to mention a lot of reference problems. Clearly it is very lacking-no biography, no guestings etc. To familiarize your self please read WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Happy Editing! (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. kurykh 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AmericanSolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Nominator: This article is nothing more than a PR piece for an insurance industry organization and has absolutely no business being included in an encyclopedia. --Goodrule (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete (G11) clear promotional material. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Korean Honduran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. There are not 10,000 Koreans in Honduras, as this article claims; South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 491 , which makes it even less likely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Korean Venezuelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 242 Koreans in Venezuela ; such a small number makes it unlikely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Strehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

autobiographical, notability not asserted or established, complete lack of reliable third-party sources Bob (QaBob) 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • leaning towards keep -- I'm seeing quite high citation figures on google scholar, one of 300, another of 223. The article needs work, but the person seems notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for not having reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp, fails wp:prof, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:33z
  • Weak keep. The citation counts seem to show a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we looking at the same #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."? The article has no reliable published third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t17:15z
      • I don't think anyone is terribly impressed by the article -- partly because (as you say) there is a lack of good sources. But the person seems notable, with widepread use (citation) of his work -- and so the alternative to deletion is to improve the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The high citation count is itself evidence, from independent reliable sources, that the person's research has made significant impact. Did you read the very first note in the "notes and examples" section of WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • very weak keepneutral GS citations for his articles start with 300, 233, 114, 73, but GS h-index is a modest 10. It would be so much more useful (not to mention easy to judge whether they met WP:N) if these pesky vanity autobiographies made some attempt to enrich the project by explaining just what exactly the subject did with reference to their research topic, rather than just adding another CV to the wikirolodex of self-promotion blurbs.Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) change to neutral, I like Nsk92's position better than my initial one. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There seems to be a weakly passable WP:PROF case based on several highly cited papers. However, since this is a WP:AUTO/WP:COI case (the article was created by User:Astrehl), and notability is fairly marginal, I would not object to deletion either. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral My iitial reaction was like Pete Hurd's (and agree on the subject of pesky autobios, unbelievable, how many vain people there are) and like him, I like Nsk92's opinion. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete first four highly cited articles are more or less the same topic which, while highly cited seems to merely be the application of cluster analysis to web pages, which isn't that novel. We they published in more notable journals and were they not cited mostly by similarly normal works, I'd give more credit. but alas, for this work i need outside verification of notability, perhaps a major award, or anything that would distinguish his work from everyday application of methods. --Buridan (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Normally I would go by the citations, and, considering the subject, I'm not the least concerned that the cites appeared elsewhere than peer reviewed journals--most good work of this sort is found in conferences. And the most cited article was in MIT's Journal of Machine Learning Research. I see the other work as reasonably well cited also. But the work was essentially a doctoral thesis, and a recent one, so I think it needs a longer track record; this may be the exceptional kind of situation where a paper but not the person makes an impact on the field. I'll admit to being affected also by the promotional nature of his website. I seem to stand with Pete and NSK, right in the middle. DGG (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Training (meteorology). –Juliancolton 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers the same material covered in a more aptly titled article (see Training (meteorology). Moreover, the references cited use only the terminology from the other article, and do not even use the phrase "storm train". While there are uses of the phrase to be found, the phrase is completely obvious from context (I don't see a need for the main article in the first place, but have given up that cause), and any doubt can be resolved from the page that has the NOAA / NWS definition Training (meteorology). The additional information in this page does not actually belong here. The flooding point is made in the main article and the formation point is made in any number of articles about thunderstorms, rain, and convective instability. Perhaps a redirect may be appropriate, but there should be no separate article under this heading. Bongomatic (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, we know this is what you think, but why? The two citations given in the article do not even use the term that is the subject of the article. What information would you want to include in Storm train that shouldn't be placed in Training (meteorology)? That is the criterion for a separate article. The fact that there are synonyms or multiple forms of a phrase doesn't make it helpful to have multiple articles--quite the contrary, it leads to the possibility of duplication, contradiction, or underinclusiveness of one or both articles, which can result in readers not getting the full story when consulting an article they reasonably could expect to be comprehensive. Bongomatic (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You may want to see the other one about shouting match, and you should see what User:Colonel Warden said. Obviously that user knows more about the Knowledge (XXG) policies than you do. I've noticed that you tend to focus solely on the deletion policy, and not on the other policies, such as the editing policy. -- IRP ☎ 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I would like to provide a reason. Instead of merging, having a brief paragraph about the main article is better, because in the future, when the article gets expanded, it would simply be too much information in one place, and it should be divided into subcategories. Imagine what it would be like if someone tried to merge the article supercell into thunderstorm. That's the purpose that the {{mainarticle}} template serves. -- IRP ☎ 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I accept that splitting a long article into multiple articles focusing on particular aspects is a valid action, but in this case Training (meteorology) is only two sentences long. Perhaps if it were very long and described many different kinds of training, I would be more willing to accept the argument. As it is, the two terms appear to be basically synonyms. So I still think the best course is to merge. However, if the resulting article later expands, it can be split at that time. brianlucas (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget Tha Otha Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I might be wikilawyering when I see this, there is an assertion of notability to this article. A single for an untitled debut album that features a known rapper and was released doesn't seem to pass the standard at WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. good reasons on both sides, no consensus likely to emerge. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouting match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a long list of "adjective noun" subjects where there is nothing beyond the obvious meaning. Here there is an attempt to enhance the one-sentence dictionary-like definition with sociological observations with a tenuous relationship with the subject. Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for User:Runningonbrains to respond, because he/she seems to know a lot of information about the deletion policy. The goal of this article was to try to expand it with information, but as I said, I would at least like to know what User:Runningonbrains has to say. -- IRP ☎ 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to understand shouting matches. However the place for that is the article on anger, of which shouting matches are a manisfestation. Redddogg (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, anger is a different topic. Shouting matches are more about a failure to communicate or find agreement. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep- per above reasoning, which hasn't been sufficiently addressed. Seems obviously notable, only question is one of where to put it, how to structure it, etc.JJJ999 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Look Who's Talking (BoA album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete:WP:Crystal and WP:Music. Also there isn't any information about the track list other than the one single. Dontyoudare (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't delete: Soon there will be a tracklist released for this album, and information about it's promotion. Why delete it when it is going to be made again within a few days?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Locallectual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term/website. Cited sources are all published by blogs and show no real world notability. BJ 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a neologism. Alexius08 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The author should have been bolder and made the article about locallectual.com, which is the real intended topic. (In that case I would probably vote to keep.) Redddogg (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Partially agree with Redddogg that this is a few minor edits away from being a deletable spam article promoting locallectual.com rather than an article describing a non-existent neologism (whose references demonstrate the existence of the term only in reference to the web site). Bongomatic (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an elaborate form of spam. Instead of promoting some web site directly and miserably failing WP:WEB, this is a WP:COATRACK attempt at promoting the same site using some WP:NEO, which "happens" to be exactly the same as the web site's name minus the TLD. VG ☎ 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis Tsai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible autobiography, seing as User:BrothersThree is a SPA who has redirected his user page to the biography. I was unable to find much for sources via google or lexisnexis, and I'm not sure the links in the article itself demonstrate notability. Looking at the criteria in WP:BIO:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - no assertion, unable to find independent reliable sources
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - no sources or suggestion to this effect
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -Theoretically Francis Tsai did play a conceptual role in Myst III: Exile, but is only mentioned in an interview with himself in a borderline reliable source; I have not found any other mention.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. - N/A of any of the above. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you add these references to the article so we can evaluate them and/or so this won't be a concern in the future? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Major ref'ing and rewrite completed. Ford MF (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nidhi Subbaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Upcoming actress" = WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. Biruitorul 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

She's upcoming, therefore she's not notable. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

USAutoPARTs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject may be notable, but if the source for the article is the director of USAutoPARTs, then we have a COI problem. Best to start over, if at all. Biruitorul 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - sources now found; my apologies. Withdraw nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 18:11, October 4, 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Bullock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per Fabrictramp SuperSilver901 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adly Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Eastern panorama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small newspaper of purely local interest. Biruitorul 03:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. C-3PO (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – Unable to decide on the notability. Meghalaya is one of the states in India that suffers a systemic bias, especially on the internet. Getting further reliable sources might be difficult. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is enough to prove its notability. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Permanence (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party sources; entirely in-universe. Biruitorul 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fatma Nevra Seggie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. , whether or not it should be merged is an editorial discussion that does not require AfD. No !votes for deletion TravellingCari 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jojo Alejar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mentions of him do exist, but I haven't found anything non-trivial. Biruitorul 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. His show's article has one reference that mentions him in a non-trivial manner... –Howard the Duck 02:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect His show's article. It seems that he's more notable if taken within the context of his show. Most hits that I got from news sources usually focus more on the show than him.--Lenticel 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jojo A. was famous back in the 1980s as one of the members of The Tigers (a dance group that performed on Penthouse Live hosted by Martin Nievera and Pops Fernandez). We may not find any available article about it online, but this video may do. It's a mix tape featuring a segment in comedy show T.O.D.A.S (or Totally Outrageous Devastating All-Star Show, I think) wherein Richie D'Horsie, Val Sotto, and Joey de Leon were spoofing The Tigers. The real members of The Tigers, including Jojo A., appears at the second half of the video as they performed on Penthous Live. He's the guy in the middle by the way. Before The Good Nigh Show, Alejar regained recent acclaim through Jojo A. All the Way, a late night talk show on RJTV 29. He has also appeared in recent movies such as Binibining K starring Keanna Reeves, Moments of Love with Dingdong Dantes, Shake Rattle and Roll 9, and most recently the television series I Love Betty La Fea. He also appeared on a music video for O Ano? watch it here. Starczamora (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are some non-trivial articles that featured Jojo Alejar...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent spam, like its counterpart Paper Sky. Biruitorul 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Paper Sky (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent spam, like its counterpart Mammoth. Biruitorul 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In-universe or at best forum sources; no third-party evidence of notability. Biruitorul 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (G11) — Among everything else wrong with the article, blatant advertising/spam. Even if sources are found, it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal: I don't see blatant spam and the "everything else" is a matter of opinion. In reference to the advertising I guess we can't have any article that covers facts on a game, website, company or entity. Looks like countless articles need to be removed. Besides the following is also in G11 criteria: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." As far as the rewrite goes, I feel it follows the intent so that is a matter of opinion as well. It is a useful tool for anyone learning more about this type of activity. And if learning about something is wrong ... then again, countless articles need to be removed. Not all of us are perfect encyclopedia writers. But by allowing folks to edit and evolve this page then the site improves (in your eyes) and more folks learn the intent of "encyclopedic." Whatever that is. dsch2oman, 15:07, 4 Oct 08. — Dsch2oman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Lacks the necessary coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is needed to assert notability. Nothing coming up in a search. Someoneanother 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A gameguide, because it has no reliable sources to make an encyclopedic article. gnfnrf (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal: "Nothing coming up in a search" - seems to me that there is quite a lot on Google. If anything, I think it's more appropriate to rename to "KingdomGame" from "Kingdom Game" - looks like to me that the extra space is confusing the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.199.18 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing usable coming up in a search. Specifically a video game needs enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article with, ten or a million listings of the game with nothing more than a few lines of blurb, or more in depth coverage in Joe Schmoe's blog does not cut the mustard. Either the game has been reviewed etc. or it hasn't. Someoneanother 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttal: The game has been reviewed and when i'm not on a work computer i'll bring those up. Also the correct spelling is Kingdom Game, and originally introduced as KingdomGame.net now as a stand alone game it *is* Kingdom Game. The first convention for Kingdom Game is the 10th of OCT. along with that is a international press release, maybe this page is a little early but it's not qualified for deletion. I do think some of the things that aren't encyclopedic, e.g. tables for the trainings, need to be removed. Also i do no believe that this was written as an advertisment, there are no loaded words showing a point of view towards the game in question. MikelZap (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Providing information to readers on how much it costs to sign up, for instance, is considered advertising and is not appropriate. MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources (WP:N) alone qualifies the article for deletion. I am interested to see what sources you have but bear in mind press releases and conventions are not independent of the game itself and do not qualify as secondary coverage. Someoneanother 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Noeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography written by a man who lacks notability and is trying to use Knowledge (XXG) to establish it - needless to say, a no-no. Nice shades, though. Biruitorul 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. may be deleted if event does not occur MBisanz 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Genesis (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not taking place JakeDHS07 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep TNA has never acknowledge the event not taking place. There is no reliable source that says it is discontinued. Only that Turning Point is now in November. Genesis might now be taking place in December.--WillC 05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - only speculated websites have announced that and not reliable ones, but if it is later acknowledged, it would make sense to redirect it to the main TNA Genesis article.--SRX 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of New Zealand debaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete-I noted my concerns in the talk page about 4 days ago, but on reflection I think this may as well go to AfD now. It is obvious from the empty talk page, and history of almost entirely anonymous edits, that nobody is going to come to the talk page to discuss this. Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" NZ debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. First, people make anonymous edits because they can't be bothered logging in. It doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. Secondly, in the sense that it is New Zealand-specific, it has different criteria to the global "list of debaters", but what is wrong with that? Dodge is pejorative and unfair word. There is something "notable" about being a good debater _within New Zealand_, and that is the point of the article - as it is for the list of Canadian debaters - to identify the best debaters within New Zealand on one page. I don't see why there can't be lists of debaters for each major country that participates in debating. Obviously in the pantheon of IVs around the world most New Zealand ones don't rate, but that's not the point of the article. (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What is notable about being a debater in NZ? Where are the sources to show this? It is just a hobby like any other. People who participate in hobbies do not need to be listed, by country or otherwise.
Comment - when I think of "notable" New Zealand debaters, I think of Tim Shadbolt, Ginette McDonald, A. K. Grant, Jim Hopkins, Raybon Kan et al. - for as far as I can see it is primarily the celebrity debates which get widespread promotion or audiences. What is the audience for a typical University debate, and what proportion of it is drawn from on-campus? dramatic (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to feel for dramatic, who has actually made positive contributions to NZ debating articles, but can clearly recognise that this list is in no way notable.JJJ999 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Further to that, I would point out that New Zealand has two distinct styles of debating that do not occur in other parts of the world in a competitive University environment. In this sense, the achievements are notable because they are not relevant in regard to the List of Debaters from around the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.95.61 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
How does that make them notable? The hobby is distinctively NZish, but so what?
At my house we have a unique game of hopscotch, played nowhere else in the world. That doesn't make me notable for wikipedia though, something you've not addressed in the slightest. I'm happy to have this argument with you, but first you need to provide some actual evidence of their notability. Are there even 2 in opposition to deleting this, or is it just the same guy (but unsigned this time)?JJJ999 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've thought very carefully before making this recommendation. But in the end, I'm not convinced that a list of University Debators from NZ is notable. Comparing this list with the Canada list is not valid - the Canada list includes public speakers, the NZ one does not; the Canada list is focused towards world championships, the NZ one is not. The information would be better listed in the articles on the competitions. See the article on the Golden Shears for an example. The equivalent list to this one would be List of New Zealand shearers, which would be a non-notable list of cruft. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Both this list and List of debaters seem to have defined their own rules for their content, which are contrary to the relevant guidelines. According to Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone lists (specifically "Lists of people") the people in a list should be "selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Knowledge (XXG) articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)". In other words, these lists should only contain people sufficiently notable for their debating to warrant having a wikipedia article dedicated to them. I suspect that would strip the list of New Zealand debaters down to nothing, making its existence pointless. Can anyone point to a New Zealander notable enough for their debating to warrant their own article? The List of debaters article might have a handful of people who have had significant media coverage specifically as debaters, the rest should be removed after a suitable warning period to allow editors to search for evidence of notability of the debaters. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Fresh Mex restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Fresh Mex" is a registered trademark of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.. There is no cited caselaw here or anywhere else suggesting that this trademark has been diluted. The article cites no sources at all, much less any suggesting that there is any such general term in English as "Fresh Mex" (in any form of capitalization or lack thereof) to describe cuisine of any variety. The list is pure original research. There is also no Fresh Mex or Fresh mex article - both bluelinks simply redir to this list, which strongly suggests PoV-pushing – clearly someone wishes that this were a definable term in general English when it is not. Furthermore, I cannot find any source for any such thing as "Mex" or "mex" to begin with; the phrase "fresh mex" or "Fresh Mex" is meaningless gibberish (which is okay in trademarks, as many of them are, but is emphatically not okay in WP article names, even aside from the trademark violation, OR and sourcing problems). Finally, the list seems not to serve any encyclopedic purpose and has no inclusion criteria. PS: The fact that a few other restaurant chains on the list use the word "fresh" in their names is neither here nor there; so do many other restaurants that have nothing at all to do with Mexican cuisine. PPS: The list is of national restaurant chains (national? what nation?), but the list title says it is of "restaurants". – SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete given trademark issues and the lack of sources to establish "fresh mex" as a category of restaurants (or to show which restaurants fall within it). --Amble (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not at all convinced that Jerem43's understanding of trademark issues is correct. The USPTO does show the phrase "Fresh Mex" itself registered by Chevy's as a live trademark. It is not true, as Jerem43 appears to claim, that only "Chevy's Fresh Mex" as a whole is trademarked. Unfortunately, the USPTO's ungainly web interface makes it difficult or impossible to provide live links. --Amble (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep:
To dissect the nominator's reasons for deletion:
  1. According to the USPTO the generic term fresh mex is not trademarked. The trademarks that are associated with Real Mex refer to the company's restaurant concept name Chevy's Fresh Mex, in fact there at least four companies that have the term fresh mex as part of their trademarked name.
  2. The fresh mex article was merged into the tex-mex article and the old article was converted to a list by me because there was almost no other information other than chain names.
  3. I picked a name that the nominator doesn't like, that does not mean it is worthy of deletion.
  4. Here is an example of the use of the general term fresh mex by a group other than a restaurant chain:
     "Fresh Mex: Not Always Healthy Mex". CSPI.
  5. This is definition of the term using a restaurant industry publication (albeit a poor def):
     "Fresh mex". Fast Casual magazine.
  6. This New York Times article establishes the notability of the term Fresh Mex and is a very reliable source:
     "At Mexican Restaurants, Hold the Fat, Not the Taste". The New York Times. 1994-09-25. It is a challenge that every Mexican restaurant chain is facing or soon will: Healthier Mexican food is coming to a restaurant near you. The trend, variously called "health Mex," "fresh Mex," "next Mex" and "lite Mex" (and by some grease-aholics who hate it, "fern Mex"), has been quietly developing for a decade in a few of the nation's 20,000 Mexican restaurants. It still accounts for but a small segment of the $8.9 billion in annual sales at Mexican restaurants.
  7. I've generated a list of Fresh mex restaurants in the US using an associated industry publication, Nation's Restaurant News, thus no WP:OR violation:
     Google search
  8. I quickly fixed the National issue, an easy fix.
The nominators argument of PoV pushing shows an ignorance of restaurant industry terminology; in the examples I have provided I have shown that it is a real term used in both the general populace (The NYT link) and in industry parlance (the Fast Casual magazine link). Furthermore, the last link shows that the term is obviously a shortened form of the term fresh Mexican. The large number of these chains in the market place also indicates that it is a viable sub segment of the restaurant industry and worthy of inclusion on Knowledge (XXG).
I have shown that the list meets the five standards for notability and SMcCandlish must now show why it does not. It appears to me that SMcCandlish's nomination for deletion appears to be more WP:Idontlikeit than policy based reasoning. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: Since you want to go the "dissection" route, I've done likewise, but posted it to the talk page here, because it's a bit lengthy to include in the middle of an AfD. I'll just copy-paste the "Conclusion" segment of it here:
Conclusion: The character string "fresh Mex" does "exist in the wild", divorced from Chevys, but means radically different things to different users of it, ranging from fresh-made fast food (a notoriously high-calorie food source), to self-consciously low-calorie food, and the only thing in common is (naturally) the Mexican influence. Ergo, this list article, even with sources, will be meaningless and confusing. It's not "a name that the nominator doesn't like", it's a meaningless name for encyclopedic purposes, with no rational inclusion criteria, and with two meanings that cannot reasonably be separated, nor reconciled, except through original research and the advancement of a personal opinion. I.e., it is not "a viable sub segment of the restaurant industry", but a pair of words that means at least two radically different sub-segments of the industry. The "poor definition" advanced by Fast Casual isn't a definition at all – read it – it is a string of food marketing terms that indicates nothing objectively factual. Your CSPInet source even confirms this conflict of meanings; they interpret it to mean "low-fat Mexican-style or -influenced food", to paraphrase (and they then say that often it actually is not), despite the fact that other sources clearly advance the meaning "quickly-prepared Mexican-style or -influenced fast food in a 'casual' atmosphere". These two overall definitions have zero in common other than the "Mexican" connection.
Finally, your point #2 that an old "fresh Mex" article was successfully merged into something else and all that is left is a bare list of chain restaurant names is an enormous pair of points in favor of deletion.
PS: It is quite possible that the term will some day have a single, explicable definition. If and when that happens, then there's a good opportunity for articles on the topic – With sources, reliable ones. I stress this point, because you made it clear (here) that you believe that list articles are somehow exempt from WP verifiability policy. They aren't.
— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, Jeremy, but I'm going to have to agree with SMcCandlish here, mainly because "Fresh Mex" is such an arbitrary term with no definition page. Many Mexican food places claim that their products are Fresh, but that's POV-pushing. If we created a list named "List of Yummy Restaurants", and backed it up with sources from the corporate websites and third parties that recommend that a person try the yummy food, it would be deleted right away. In addition, the articles in this list should all be in Category:Mexican restaurants, which does a better job anyway. Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmm. The category is too ambiguous and needs to be taken to CfD for forking into "Restaurants of Mexico" and "Mexican-style restaurants" (maybe the latter with a "Mexican-influenced restaurants" subcat). There are other ways of approaching it, but the gist is to separate the style from the location. In the interim, I'd support putting them all in that category, including this list article if it survives. I note that the subcat Category:Fast-food Mexican restaurants exists, but which of these restaurants do and don't qualify is an open question (part of the raison d'etre of this AfD). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you've misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you, but also suggesting further category clarification. There's a very strong trend at CfD to ensure that categories speaking of things "of" (as in natively or indivisibly of somewhere) be at one "of"-styled category, while things evocative of but not integral to that topic be in another. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah I know I was agreeing with you. Haha. Categorizing really isn't my expertise, so I'll leave any other improvements up to you; I just made sure the articles in the list were in the Mexican food or Fast-Food mexican food categories. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies:
(Try this search for better results.)

  1. The search I listed earlier, not the one above this reply, provides a list of restaurants that are defined as "Fresh Mex," invalidating claims that Fresh Mex is owned and limited to Chevy's. It also provides dozens of examples of these types of restaurants. While it does give many hits for sites with the two search terms located on the same page that are unrelated, it does do a really good job of showing what I was pointing out that the term exists in the wild and that it is a valid market segment in the industry. The added Nation's Restaurant News variable (NRN is a major restaurant industry trade magazine) helps pare the list down to one that is more manageable and whose results conform to the standards of WP:RS and WP:V.
  2. I believe that lists do not need to have sources if they contain links to articles that do contain citations. The information contained within the lead of the list does need proper citations per WP:lists. Again this is my interpretation of WP:Lists, so I have placed a request for a third opinion on the Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists talk page in regards to this issue of contention.
  3. If you are saying the New York Times is not reliable, than you need to provide a really good and valid reason as to why it isn't reliable. Yes it does make an occasional mistake, but that is to be expected with any newspaper; it is considered one of the most accurate and award-winning news sources in the world, and has obtained that reputation through thorough reporting time and time again. It is probably one of the most widely quoted secondary sources used on WP.
  4. Please read what I said about the CSPI link. I was using it as an example of the term being used outside of WP, not as a defining source. Again, the New York Times uses the term in numerous articles to mean lighter, Mexican inspired foods made from freshly prepared ingredients as opposed to prepackaged foodstuffs found at places such as Taco Bell and others. That is the only source that I have used to define the term in the list.
  5. Per the Fast Casual Magazine: again, I was using it as an example to show the term being used in the restaurant industry and not how it is defined in the list. You will not find it utilized anywhere in the list or any article for that matter. Also, you will find that most classification terms used in the restaurant industry, or any other retail industry for that matter, started out as marketing terms; this includes terms such as value menu, value meal, fast casual restaurant and others.
  6. I have worked on the list and brought into compliance with the standards set fourth in WP:Lists; all of its sources meet the criteria of WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; and the list meets does not meet the criteria of WP:OR.

Again, please state a policy based reason as to why the list fails to meet the standards for AfD. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply comment: No one (that I know of) is disputing the fact that the phrase "fresh Mex" exists. The dispute is that this term has no objective definition, much less a reliably sourceable one that does not conflict with competing reliably sourceable ones. But none of that matters. What does matter is that this is a totally unsourced article. You could make a WP:POINT out of this by going and sourcing it your particular way, but it can be sourced just as well in the opposite direction. The problem is that, to the extent the phrase can be sourced at all, it means two opposite things, that are at cross purposes, and the list as it stands is an amalgamation of both. Nothing of what you have said here changes that. Your above-expressed belief that list articles somehow are not subject to Wikpedia policy on sourcing stands on its own; I don't even need to say anything about it. All other issues I leave for the talk page, as my comments there have already addressed the points you raise. If you think they have not, then take it up there and we'll see. The ability to string together a numbered series of alleged arguments does not an actual argument make, especially given that most of these points have already been countered. Policy-based reasons have already been given, in spades. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to see my point: you have not given a valid reason why the article does not meet the standards for inclusion, that is what an AfD is all about. You have to demonstrate how the article in question fails to meet the the standards of WP:Note, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; that it violates the standards of WP:OR; or that it doesn't meet the standards of WP:Lists. I have shown that the subject in question does in fact meet the standards of the former and does not violate the standards of the center or the latter. Yes, the subject can mean different things to different people and organizations, but that is not grounds for deletion.

As per your claim that the list items found in lists need to be cited, here is some proof of what I am saying is correct using one randomly chosen Featured List: List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films. Take a look how the list is formatted and you will see that the list itself does not contain any citations (the notes do not count as citations). The only cites that are found in this list are in the lead and included paragraphs, just as they are in this list - exactly as I have been saying all along. The list items included in the list itself do not need to be cited, it is the individual articles that the list items link to that need to be properly cited.

So to be more specific, please show concrete evidence that this list violates one of the standards I listed in this posts first paragraph. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

List of most frequently mentioned brands in the Billboard Top 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

original research, indescriminate information Habanero-tan (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. consensus appears to be that improvements during the AfD are acceptable TravellingCari 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Neutrality 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of . the Review may actually be notable, but they need to start over. Very close to a G11, promotional, in any case DGG (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If the author wrote the bio on the website and the article - why would you delete it? jennmarie25 (talk)
The article is tagged for deletion because it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject using independent third-party sources. We can see that you done a considerable amount of work on the article. However, it is not encyclopaedic in content or in tone. For example, subscription details for a periodical do not belong in Knowledge (XXG). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - Unfortunately, G11 promotional. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Krider Performing Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Neutrality 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Harmonica man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Woodview commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dormitory, this is the only housing at the college. Therefore, it is an important component of the college and deserves to be merged with the ICC website. You cannot consider something non-notable or insignificant if you have no reference point. This is not a community college but a junior college - and yes, there is a difference. As the only housing at the institution, this is an important reference source for anyone interested in the college. --Nalask (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nalask's claims above are somewhat contrary to reality:
  1. This AfD isn't about whether Woodview can be in the ICC article; it's already mentioned in the ICC article, though it could be removed because it has no reliable sources in the ICC article.
  2. Woodview is the only housing "at" the college because, if I recall correctly, the Public Community College Act does not allow community colleges to have campus housing, but ICC did some very careful legal maneuvering such that Woodview isn't technically a component of ICC at all. That being said: Being the "only" housing is not relevant anyway; whether student housing is grouped under one name or ten does not affect notability. Apartments near a school are not unusual, to put it mildly.
  3. As for the claim that Knowledge (XXG) editors "cannot consider something" (whatever that means): such a topic, which people "have no reference point" to judge, would fail WP:Notability by definition anyway.
  4. Yes, there may be a difference between a junior college and a community college: but Illinois Central College (Illinois Community College District 514) is obviously a public community college, just like all the others under the Public Community College Act (110 ILCS 805); I'm not even sure what that has to do with the Woodview Commons article though.
  5. I have no idea what is meant by an apartment building being an "important reference source"; that's what the library (300 feet away) is for. --Closeapple (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Independent Republican (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unlike Independent Democrat, this article offers no examples of or references to Republicans who have failed to secure the Republican nomination for office, then ran as an independent candidate and defeated the Republican candidate. Rtphokie (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a couple of examples. Feel free to peruse the list of former House members to find others. Strongly disagree with this article's deletion. Valadius (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep if Independent Democrat is kept, this should too. ] (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:ONEEVENT and our policy on criminal acts. Wizardman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable individual and the article is what appears to be a BLP trainwreck. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been asked to comment how WP:BLP applies when the subject of the article is obviously no longer alive. Our BLP policies embody a set of principles, one of which is to respect human dignity and cover subjects (living and dead) in a neutral, unbiased manner. This article focuses on a specific (non-notable) event. We are here to create the sum of human knowledge; I see no case to be made that this individual should be included in that collection. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite being dead, WP:BLP applies. The article is unsourced, and violates WP:NOT#NEWS. –Juliancolton 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. First, WP:BLP does not apply to dead people, only to living ones. Second, our policy on criminal acts cited by the nom, is Knowledge (XXG):Notability (criminal acts), which is not a policy, not even a proposed policy but a proposed guideline. I think there is a weak passable notability case here. There was significant media coverage around the time of trial (1990) and execution (2003). The case attracted extra attention because of supposed mental illness of the death row inmate. There was some international coverage of the execution, apparently because of this, in addition to national coverage (and also local coverage in NC newspapers). The case was subsequently cited in several newsstories about efforts to abolish the death penalty in North Carolina based in part on what happened in this execution. The case was covered in detail in the book "Death Penalty USA: 2003-2004". I think there is a passable notability case here under both WP:N and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd definitely say delete based on the article, except for Nsk92's sources; as I don't have time to read them, I won't vote. But come on, how can a policy about LIVING people be about dead ones? Shall we remove most information about Neitiqerty Siptah, as he was once a living person whose article is but little referenced? Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Adequate sources. The information on the execution should be added. the traditional sentence about the last meal is utter trivia, certainly by comparison, and should be removed. DGG (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are we going to have the criminal records of all executed people on Knowledge (XXG)? The article doesn't cite any third party sources to assert notability of this criminal beyond that crime. This is a news story, not encyclopedic content. VG ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
not paper. At least for the countries for which we have good accessible news source, it is much less frequent and therefore much more notable than, say, 200 years ago --being only applicable to exceptional crimes -- since only a few of the primary english speaking countries actually have the death penalty. DGG (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Union for Reform Judaism. –Juliancolton 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

URJ Camp Swig/Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability. Elliskev 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

insufficient notability: appeared in a couple of notable productions, but not in notable roles; no references other than IMDB and a fansite - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - Seems to pass requirements for actors although he clearly isn't a superstar. Mentioned in New York Times is valid. Needs a lot of work though, from reliable paper sources if possible. As it is, this nomination is completely valid and there is abolsutely no assertion in the content of why it constitutes an article. I would strongly suggest the creator improves it and adds information about his acting career using reliable sources. The Bald One 19:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kurykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Node (computer gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The mention of Myst might have been a mistake. But I know Beyond Zork did use the term "node" in this sense. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Interestingly, I vaguely remember a book about game design discussing this concept, but I don't remember much of it. I think someone familiar with the field should take a look at this. A quick Google Books search returns multiple reliable sources from books discussing game design that mention nodes, although the topic discussed is different from what is discussed in the article.
  • Delete — cannot find any sources establishing notability of what seems to be nothing more than a neologism. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a moment. A Google News search is unlikely to turn up concepts or techniques used in computer games. A textbook on game design would be more proper. Rilak (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've found a few items in Google Books that look promising. While I can only get a few snippets of text, I don't think an interlibrary loan is going to get here before the AFD is over:
In The Inform Designer's Manual, by Graham Nelson and Gareth Rees, on p. 369, we have "Regions... or else are delineated by simple geography: cave games are especially prone to this, often having a node-like room with exits in eight cardinal directions. Thus "Zork II" has..."
In Hypertext: State of the Art by Ray McAleese and Catherine Green, on p. 138 we have "little passages of ADVENT and Zork and marketed by Infocom and other companies...where each scene is a node and your options are the allowable paths" and
In Atlas of Cyberspace by Martin Dodge, Rob Kitchin, on p. 181, we have "computer games "Zork" and "Adventure" of the mid-1970s ..... technique: link-node topological map, hand-drawn with pencil and paper."
So while these snippets I found over a couple minutes don't make an article, they do show it's more likely than not (the first book is a game designer's manual) that there really is a concept in game design called a node, and that it's associated with adventure games, it may have been more common in the 1980s, and may have its roots in text-based roleplaying games before computers. So we should give this article the benefit of the doubt and see which sources can be added. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Those sources don't show notability, and I don't think that any articles should have the benefit of the doubt. This article has had a long enough time to be improved because it has existed since 2006. Schuym1 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If they are books used to teach game design at a university or equivalent level, and they have a significant material on the subject, then I see little reason to see how they can not be used to prove notability. Also, judging a topic's notability on the quality on the article's content is irrelevant. I have seen basic fundamental topics in computer science lacking content and quality. Doesn't mean they are any less notable than a heavily edited Pokemon article. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's clear that "node" here is the same data structure element as a node in a Graph (data structure) (also called a vertex). The concept of node-based travel in a computer game seems better suited to be discussed somewhere in Adventure Game. --MASEM 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We could redirect to Level (video games) if there is no consensus to keep. It already has sections on maps and dungeons, and it wouldnt be too hard to condense the salvageable parts of the article plus the refs brought out in this AFD to create a paragraph discussing node-based gameplay. A redirect will keep the history of this article for people doing a merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Near as I can tell, this reformation is not notable, even in the German version of Guano Apes. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Strummer25 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to Guano Apes I can find little English sourcing but this search seems to indicate that they have received coverage. The previous band has certainly received the coverage required to be the topic of an article and this reformation would seem to be an reasonably important part of an article about the band. Depending on future coverage maybe a separate article will be necessary but currently I do not think the sourcing to support such an article is immediately available. Guest9999 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Their official website has not been updated since June 2006. It seems they have one album out, and any coverage i can find relates to that, hence they fail WP:MUSIC at this time. Recreate if/when they find more notability or the next album is released.Yobmod (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Not sure how this "method" is notable, and how encyclopedic the method is. Appears to be a forum to advertise a method of teaching, with links to companies that offer it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yellow River State Forest. MBisanz 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yellow River Fire Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think fire towers can possibly be notable. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bill Jelen. MBisanz 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fresh Writers Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only thing, notability wise, that this article has going for it is the creator, Bill Jelen. Google searches turn up hundreds of thousands of results, but only the first 4 are relevant to the company, and two of the four are the company page. I say delete or merge with a better article. (possible merge with Bill Jelen) Undead Warrior (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge Google books search shows six books publish by this company and Google comes up with over 4,400. Until it attains more notibility and more third party ref., it doesn't stand on it's own yet. JavierMC 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

↑