Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

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. Rje (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in television

Doesn't seem notable enough, also not from a world point of view. StaticGull Talk 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs expansion and improvement as well as proper formatting but there is definitely verifiable notability for the single event listed so far. The article is a chronological progression of the rest of the articles listed in List of years in television, it just needs to be cleaned up and expanded. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've formatted the single event into a table as well as added the template used by other articles in the same series. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There will be an article with this title on Wikipedia soon enough (see 2006 in television, 2007 in television, 2008 in television, etc.). There is a fair amount of precedent for stubbing out these sorts of articles even when they are in future (see Super Bowl XLVI et al). Only a "weak keep," though, because I can see an argument for deleting it now and recreating it later when there is enough content to justify a full article and not just a stub. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As Jaysweet stated above, there will be an article named this eventually. We should have a clear idea of which TV series are expected to air in the next year by June-July through leaks and press releases so I can see this article surviving for the time being. We could however rename this article to match its film counterpart as Near future in television. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTALUndetermined-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as failing WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel UK: New Things 2008

This doesn't seem very encyclopedic. StaticGull Talk 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or program guide. JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a preview guide, not an encyclopedic article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its a promotional article. According to WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."--Finalnight (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Academy of Ottawa

Mostly consists of vandalism, it also doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull Talk 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

took out the vandalism -- good catch. someone should report the vandals. Notably especially given Jesse Levine having gone there.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.27.8 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also say this article should stay. It's notable if for no other reason than that at least 400 people go to this elementary school. It's just as notable as any other elementary school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.93.190 (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) JForget 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no good cites out there, see [1]. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:School says elementary schools aren't notable barring particular significance and coverage in reliable sources to accompany it. With a boat load of precedent, nothing exceptional and no good sources, delete's the way to go. Vickser (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant spam: The company revolutionized the world of data acquisition systems for the test and measurement market with a new paradigm in analog to digital conversion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data Translation, Inc.

Fails WP:CORP because it has no references, and it reads like an advertisement. The author Jfir has no contributions outside this article and is no longer active. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all advertising, very little salvageable material. This company might, might be notable enough for an article, but, what is it they say? This ain't it. L'Aquatique[review] 04:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:N Artene50 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Designations of Russian towed artillery

This article does not supply encyclopedic content. It appears to be a guide on how to identify certain pieces of Russian artillery. epicAdam (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not an identification guide, an explanation of designation systems; something we can all do with now and then. Needs sources though. Buckshot06(prof) 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikify, wikilink, and expand. This is what an encyclopedia is all about. L0b0t (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, agreeing with other comments. Needs expanding, but it belongs here. --Lockley (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conversion to list and all of above would fix this article up. DA PIE EATER 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Move and Expand (non-admin closure). Article was moved to suggested title here. WilliamH (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAHD

Though I have tons of respect for such an organization, the fact remains that it is not important enough to have gathered sufficient third-party coverage to justify an article on Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several references. I recommend moving the article to the organization's full name, International Association for Handicapped Divers. --Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the sources Eastmain added it seems notable and there are more that can be added to help with expanding the article. Faradayplank (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move article to International Association for Handicapped Divers as per Pichpich Artene50 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article includes "International Association". Snow keep--Caspian blue (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Pichpich. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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,. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kick the Bass EP

Non-notable EP release; article (as of this writing) fails WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and I assume WP:CRYSTAL too doktorb _words^deeds 22:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be saved if even one source was found. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete._{Wiki11790 talk} 01:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails WP:MUSIC and CRYSTAL as well. JBsupreme (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^Talk 08:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWire Peer Support Network

Non-notability, orphaned. This seems like self-advertisement of a not very well known website. WP:NOT, WP:WEB Bitterloving (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More of an advertisement than a notable site. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable forum. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not well known? It is designed to help teenagers with their issues, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerTechMan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the purpose is fully understood here, but is it worth an article on Wikipedia? Check WP:WEB for guidelines on notability. There are many other teen forums on the Internet, why is this one different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.243.53 (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is large, has over a million posts. Not any other forums provide that many posts, with that many members, with that much fun. This forum is worth an article, its for the health of teenagers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerTechMan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of posts doesn't much prove that. Look at WP:WEB for notability of a web-specific articles. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise you to read WP:WEB again. You've already made a comment, but irrespective of that, forum size is irrelevant. The AVForums has over 5 million posts and over 200,000 members. Clearly the LiveWire numbers are far less than this, yet the AVForums doesn't have it's own Wikipedia page. It is not a notable topic at point, and you as the creator already puts bias into your argument. 86.156.243.53 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per ComputerTechMan._{Wiki11790 talk} 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N DA PIE EATER 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nursing Homes

Delete, poorly referenced, encyclopedic list of the 'best' 50 nursing homes in the US, sorted by, of all things, number of beds. This could never be comprehensive, and is quite biased in its current form. It isn't really worth keeping, and could be better handled by categorizing all notable nursing homes. Prodego ^talk 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there is no definition of what a "top" nursing home is, it seems like an advert and POV. Unreferenced and possible OR. Agreed that it would be better as a category. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not properly referenced. No reason to believe that it could be --T-rex 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is not an indiscriminate directory of lists doktorb _words^deeds 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedic topic that could be expressed and sourced a bit better, starting with a better choice of words than "top nursing homes". Although "number of beds" may seem like a crazy way to measure something, that actually is the standard in the health-care industry when determining capacity and availability. The list of American corporations that own and operate nursing homes, and the breakdown of types of facilities, is material that may exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. The problem is not the content, but the writing skill of the article author; the latter can be improved. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as a list with no workable definition, unless someone can find a reliable third-party list of the most notable. And there's another problem, the overlapping definitions of nursing homes vs. extended-care centers vs. senior communities. It doesn't seem sensible. --Lockley (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only source listed offers the information ~~for sale~~ via their website. ~~Does that mean~~Do they own the said information, and if so have they granted permission for it to be published here? Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll vote Keep with reservations as it is unclear whether or not the publisher of the information, SK&A, has consented for the use of the data in this way. They do make it available for free to anyone that wants it via their website, however. Rejectwater (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, but the source for this article is password-protected (even if registration be free). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split. A mere list of nursing homes would likely be quite indiscriminate. However, the actual contents of this don't match the stated subject. An alternative to deletion might be to split the article into individual lists. However, I am concerned about the copyvio aspect.--Kubigula (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also thought it seemed copyvio to simply use all the lists as given in the source. US-centic. If kept should be called "List of US Nursing Homes by capacity" or somesuch.Yobmod (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matoran

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the various articles on Bionicle media. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Once again this editor has failed to properly inspect an article before bringing it here. The previous AFD was closed just 3 days ago and so this nomination is a disruptive renomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be deleted, but the last AfD was three days ago --T-rex 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Insufficient time passed since last AfD. Consensus does not change this quickly. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep despite the fact I think it is a lousy article and supported deletion before. Tag it, give it a month, and then see. --Thetrick (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - My apologies, I didn't realize my original nomination was closed so quickly, so I thought I hadn't gotten around to do one at all! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected by Werdna. —Kurykh 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mastrocola

Non-notable professional wrestler; article lacks references and independent sources, and the Facebook link is not working (as of this writing) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Neutral. Notability's not great, but this article might be okay with some work._{Wiki11790 talk} 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacques Rougeau - trivial media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very few good sources out there: [2]. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nappy Roots. Kurykh 02:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Stille

Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also fails WP:MUSIC but either way same result I guess. JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nappy Roots. There's no assertion of independent notability, but it's a valid search term.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nappy Roots - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Nappy Roots - no sourced content to merge; also fails WP:MUSIC. Smile a While (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is the subjects are not sufficiently notable.--Kubigula (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Flamingo

Contested prod. Unreferenced article for a non-notable fictional character. Both "The Pink Flamingo" and "Most Wanted Flamingo" appear to be the same article, so I'm AfD'ing both. Rnb (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per this unsurprising Google result. If anything notable comes from Myspace, it ought to show up on Google. (I think The Pink Flamingo was supposed to be a redirect.) AnturiaethwrTalk 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - have received no coverage whatsoever --T-rex 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NONE The author of the adventures of Pink Flamingo is very talented and her blogs are hysterical. And although she does not receive money or is famous (yet) that should not exclude the entry on this FREE encyclopedia. It is possible that this character will become more main stream in the future. Also, if any context listed here must be worthy of a Google search then why should there even be a Wikipedia? However, if you do the correct search of "The pink flamingo" +myspace -wikipedia then you will see that The Pink Flamingo is number 2 on the return. Plus, since Myspace is a Social Networking site, the Pink Flamingo has received plenty of coverage.--Madcowgunn (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must meet notability requirements, which the subject of this article does not appear to, hence the reason the articles are being considered for deletion. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good policy, it's still a policy of Wikipedia. Also, the only hits I see returned with that search are the MySpace pages, which are not considered valid sources (see WP:RS for information on what constitutes a reliable source.) If the subject is covered in a reliable source independent of the subject, please let us know. Rnb (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the site doesn't work that way. Just because this is a free encyclopedia doesn't mean it's going to cover everything that's ever existed. This character has to meet the verifiability guidelines right now - the possibility they may become famous one day is not enough. And MySpace is definately not a reliable source, so that is not enough to be considered verifiable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rebuttal to NOT delete, again Yes, I understand it should not include everything that ever existed (that was rather insulting by the way. I love a good debate but would appreciate the insults to left out of it), my point was that since it is free site and it should support writers that post on a regular basis on any website. Plus, it does not contain all of the same info that one would find in an actual Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is great but includes a ton of fantasy truthiness that in the real world would not hold merit. And, I have found many of myspace bloggers on Wikipedia. One of which I just did a Google search on and they are not located anywhere else except Myspace. I also know of small business owners that are listed on here as well, that should not be based on the arguments above. --Madcowgunn (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place to discuss whether or not we like Wikipedia's policies, but it is the place to discuss whether or not the subjects of these two articles have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so if we could stay on that task, that would be great. As far as other articles not complying with this policy, if you know of any, you are free to tag them or nominate them for deletion as I did with these two. Rnb (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject matter of my responses had nothing to do with whether I like the policies. I was including support to the significant coverage on this fictional character, as well as, debating the information that was written back regarding this subject matter. However, I will continue the following in wiki language. There is a global rule of Ignore all rules. "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". Not allowing small time writers the ability to get their work out to the public, does hinder improvement. This author has been writing for over a year on this fictional character. Also, any artists should never be omitted because they do not have a thousand hits on Google (and Google does not check on whether a link is verifiable or whether it violated any copyright laws). I also read your other policies and there is nothing that excludes Myspace as a verifiable source. In addition, this is a work of fiction, and I included the links to verify the source of the material listed. --72.90.50.191 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that Myspace is covered by WP:SPS and that including non-notable subjects in Wikipedia would hurt it, so I'll just leave it at that and wait for consensus. Rnb (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Our current guidelines provide that we do not cover every blogger, just the more notable ones, and I don't see any evidence that this blogger/fictional character has attained notability per WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through of your policies and have not found anything that would exclude bloggers on Myspace, which is owned by News Corp (reliable source). Nor, are there any guidelines that state Wikipedia will not cover every blogger. And, on a side note (since you included the link above) this particular section is not advertisement. The terms used in your policies are general and some can be deemed subjective. However, if it is your unwritten policy to not allow materials based on authors that blog on social networking sites only (however, I still have the seen that in writing) then I will conclude that I have nothing else to offer (if you require links to other websites that spoke about/speak of this particular fictional character). --Madcowgunn (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FICT. --Thetrick (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." --Madcowgunn (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sympathize with the article creator's attachment to the subject, but Myspace simply isn't a reliable source here, and the character isn't notable under any criteria I can identify. Townlake (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so while it's certainly "possible that this character will become more main stream in the future" the article should be created when that happens and not before. - Dravecky (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personally, i think it would be speedyable as web content without any even plausible assertion of notability. Myspace is not publication, nd thats why we have speedy for such content, which we dont for published works. DGG (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point that I hadn't thought of. I'll keep that in mind when I patrol new pages from now on. Thanks! Rnb (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above references to existing policy. Wiki is not a crystal ball, a blog, a social networking site, or a directory. doktorb _words^deeds 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply because of notability concerns. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NN_{Wiki11790 talk} 01:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobpon

Website advert with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch turns up lots of hits, none of which show notability; gnews turns up a single hit that is not about this site. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobpon's wiki page was created to inform the public about what we are trying to do for customers, businesses and the environment. As you can see our economy is currently in a rut right now and we as customers and business owners need to come together and make our lives more simple. Stimulus check? What a joke. With gas prices as high as they are my check will be gone in a month. We have a small solution that can give a bit of relief to us as customer and even business owner as well. The answer to our problem is in the website called Mobpon.com. Customers want deals right now so if they find them they will be apt to spend more. Businesses need cheap marketing. It's like a self stimulus. Mobpon never uses paper thus saving the environment. If we the consumer and business owners work together we can improve our economy. We are working to put more information on our wiki page to let people know about what Mobpon was created for. Thank you for your time.

Daniel Ellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfactor54 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing that leads me to believe this article can meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB, and it clearly fails to meet the intent, in that it describes the content of the site and fails to discuss the encyclopedic relevance of the site. gnfnrf (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is shown for this web based business. Wikipedia is not in the business of offering free advertising to non-notable businesses, even if it would stimulate the economy if we did. That has to be one of the more clever and original arguments to keep a spammy article I've seen in some time, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a spammy advert created by Xfactor54 who says above that he is deeply involved with this non-notable company. - Dravecky (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Admins are ridiculous. With all the underlining jabs i feel like im in a chatroom with teenagers. I hope this update is to your liking Wiki-Admin Gods. --Xfactor54 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest again (as I suggested in my response on my talk page) that you read WP:Notability and WP:WEB. I'll even through in WP:SPAM for good measure. Wikipedia does have guidelines, which have been decided on by the whole community, not just admins. If you'd like to help write articles that meet the guidelines, we'll be glad to help as much as we can. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate that. I'm working hard on getting Mobpon into the public. Not just for commercial use but because contrary to what some admins think the cycle between consumer and business owner is wide in the U.S. And lower prices are the only thing that is going to make americans spend money. I want to adhere to every rule in Wikipedia it seems like they're to many to keep up with. Maybe you should come up with a service that builds business owners wiki pages. Whatever you say needs to be edited, will be edited. Thank you for your time.

The basic rule to follow is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as simple as that. There's a long list of what Wikipedia is not but it's quite clearly not for business development, not for advertising, and not for any entity that has not received notice in reliable secondary sources. This entry fails those basic tests. - Dravecky (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If and when the site gets some reliable coverage, at that time, it may meet criteria. "I'm working hard on getting Mobpon into the public." Wikipedia is not a place to gain attention, momentum, or exposure for a product/service/website. It's a place for things that already have established notability. Ask yourself: 50 years from now, if nothing more were to come of this site Mobpon(than what's presented on the current article), would it warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? If you answer yes how relevant is an encyclopedia that lists millions of things that never garnered much attention (like my 6th birthday party or my uncle Lou's BBQ sauce) Faradayplank (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good talk admins i understand. I will not fight the deletion anymore. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.118.30 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete obvious spam, COI notwithstanding. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. So spammy, should've been speedy deleted._{Wiki11790 talk} 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possibly redirect to Gaudiya Math as per WP:SNOW. Nomination withdrawn by nominator who has changed his vote to redirect.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goudiya Math

Non notable local ashram with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable ashram with no reliable sources or evidence of notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is this about one specific local temple or is it a generic name for a class of temples? I ask because the snippets thrown up by a Google Books search refer to such things as "Sri Devananda Goudiya Math", "Sri Chaitanya Goudiya Math" and "a branch of Central Goudiya Math at Mayapur", and some other names turn up in a Google web search. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply This organization is an ashram located within the Royapettah suburb of Chennai. At least, this is the information that these two pages state. I have found passing references to the subject in Royapettah, but there is little information in any reliable sources I have looked at and no reasons to assume that the ashram is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaudiya Math - phonetic spelling of the same name - WP:CFORK. Wikidās ॐ 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/Question It appears to me to be a subgroup of the Gaudiya Math located in Chennai. Should subgroups of the Gaudiya Math be merged together, considering that theyformed after the original Gaudiya Math fell apart? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gaudiya Math; Goudiya Matha; Goudiya Mutt; - all spelling of the same thing, an unofficial monasteries following Siddhanta Saraswati. This is a clear redirect case. Please note that unlike ISKCON - Gaudiya Math was never officially registered by the founder under this or any name. Wikidās ॐ 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin Nominator changed vote to redirect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Run (song)

Delete per "Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs" and WP:OR. It's simply a song like many others and it's NOT a single. It's also completely unreferenced, meaning that the content would be short-lived if merged to 8 Mile (album). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reverend X (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability and the article makes no claims to justify inclusion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non.notable song.Yobmod (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted — Werdna • talk 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norsez

The article's creator mainly has uploaded the images and worked on the article. Might be a db-band situation. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not provide any sources to establish notability according to WP:MUSIC criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He seems to be huge around the world, see [3], but I can't find much in the way of many good sources in the first few pages. I'd lean to keep for now. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I realize not everything may be in English but I'm not getting much --T-rex 23:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Gurjar kshatriya kadiya samaj

Non notable with no reliabe sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable organization concerning a Gujarati subcommunity, also much of the article is OR. The only sources that describe the organization are its own websites. Reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Hot Summer!

No encyclopedic value. Fails at least WP:PCR, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. Ros0709 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete So Unencyclopedic Article! (And it's Disney Channel listcruft. Those articles usually need a good cleaning frequently.) Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothtically, this could possibly even be speedied for a lack of context. I mean, what is it? Nowhere does the article say anything about what this "So Hot Summer!" thing actually is. So I'm going to say Speedy delete for lack of context. Calgary (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every television station and network has some kind of summer image campaign (most of them are really lame, IMO). This isn't much different and has no context to say why it's extraordinary from any other image campaign. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a short sentence at the top to provide some context, but the article's name no longer fits with the 2007 and 2008 campaigns. Possibly move to "Disney Channel summer image campaigns" if not deleted. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Half of the article is not even about "So Hot Summer!", but the slogans that succeeded it. It seems almost like an article about a tagline. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Nilroy

Article fails to establish how this "producer/actor" meets the wp:bio notability standard. Zero ghits. A possible hoax. brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. As said, zero Google hits, and no references to assert notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that this person is involved with Atonement, Little Miss Sunshine, T-Mobile, SMA or that this person even exists. Rnb (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable figure, I also am unable to find supporting evidence for the claims made in the article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible hoax but in any case would not meet WP:BIO and verifiability requirements. JBsupreme (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aplus.Net

Recreation of deleted article (4 times!), COI creation, not notable, just another web hoster, not linked into rest of wiki, nothing remotely encyclopedic about this company, wikipedia is not a list of companies, been successfully AFDd twice before, is advertising for company only, recreated by bad-faith abuse of wikipedia and its policies by multiple sockpuppets multiple times. Extremely unlikely to improve. Given the abuse, recommend delete and salt. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I did some source checking. The "CNET Editor’s Choice Award in April, 2003"? Not mentioned on the page in question. (Of course, neither was the "unsatisfactory" BBB rating alleged in the controversies section.) If verifiability is crumbling, then so also goes their claim to notability. It may be a fine company, but it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Strike three for this article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for them both previously having been there, although the judging criteria was rather murky and the CNET page involved seemed to have been sponsored by... Aplus.net... (hence not independent). The BBB rating was presumably raised because they managed to close the 91 open cases. None of which makes the company notable so far as I can tell.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the editor's choice award page. Gr1st (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, as we noticed in the first review[4], CNET were then being 'sponsored' by aplus.net back then, so we've no reason to think that this is an independent review.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either a source is reliable or it isn't: CNET seems to be regarded as the former on Wikipedia. Since they place great stock in the impartiality of their reviews ("our editors are never directed or influenced by... advertisers"), I don't see why they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt here. Gr1st (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's either reliable or it isn't, then in this case, it isn't then. You can't use a source on CNET to reference itself to build its credibility. And the wiki policy says that a source on any particular subject has to be independent; but aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money when they got the award, and they're not independent on this matter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the first two AfD debates, I can only assume the sponsorship you refer to is on this page. The first AfD took place in late 2006. The editor's choice award review I linked to above was written in April 2003. Is there anything to suggest that aplus.net were paying them sponsorship money at this time? Gr1st (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the very least I found aplus.net ads plastered all over the cnet site. How is them winning an award to somebody they advertise with encyclopedic? If I read this article, what have I learned that I couldn't learn from a business directory? Where's the true encyclopedic notability in this article or company Grlst???- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - CNET are a credible media outlet, not a bunch of cowboys. This article certainly does not read like an advert. There is no evidence to suggest that this, when written in 2003, was not 100% independent. (Should The New York Times be disqualified as a reliable source on every organisation or corporation that has ever advertised in its pages?) Therefore it seems to me that Aplus.Net has received has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (here, here and here). And since the article isn't, on the whole, used purely for promotional purposes, nor is it a copyright violation, that's all we need. It's a keep from me. Gr1st (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it's significant coverage. And it's of questionable independence (CNET are a company trying to make money, and Aplus.Net are an advertiser... with the best will in the world, what would you do?)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, look, it's a web hoster right? What would happen if we tried to merge it with web host. Seriously what would happen?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that the material would get instantly deleted for lack of notability, and would not even be mentioned.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that this article exists on its own, but would be deleted if merged? What has this company done to make itself truly encyclopedic??? Nothing. They won a prize. That's nice, no really. But it's not like they get a trophy, there's no award ceremony. The company that awarded it is just another company that gets advertising from them. They get to stick an icon up on a web page.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the question is how notable do you need to be to be in the wikipedia? If you set the bar very low then practically everyone in the world gets an article, the question is what is the right level?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at notability within the wikipedia. NOTHING links to Aplus.Net, and I claim that that's because they are not encyclopedic notable. None of the other wikipedia pages say that they are notable, and I don't see that they should do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not notable enough to be linked from the main page for what they do or any other pages, then they're certainly not notable enough to be in the wikipedia. Delete and salt this has gone on long enough.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two final points from me on this:

Your questioning of the independence of this article is spurious. We don't even know if Aplus advertised at all on CNET.com as far back as 2003.

WP:N is our guide here. The article in question contains references from multiple, reliable third party sources (CNET, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the Bizjournals network). Let consensus decide whether that is sufficient. Gr1st (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: there were allegations of sockpuppetry in last AFD. Were these ever taken to checkuser? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There didn't seem to be much point to do that. We could still run it if you wish. FWIW the list of probable or likely socks relating to this and the twin article Gabriel Murphy are: User:Wiki-enforcer, User:troyc, User:70.13.22.85 User:74.5.120.11 is suspicious, User:LakeBoater, User:69.76.132.152. There may well be more.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a non-notable award wouldn't make them notable, even if there wasn't a COI.Yobmod (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon/tables

exact duplicate of List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon only organized into tables, there is no need for two programs list only organized differently Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps a sortable table would work better? Maybe it would be a reasonable compromise. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundent - but perhaps this should be moved over the other article? --T-rex 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was a discussion on the talk page of the other article, which had no consensus. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two needs to be deleted --T-rex 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinda like a content fork, but for formatting, it seems. If there is a dispute over what format to use for the article, its resolution probably doesn't involve making a separate page. Maxa megalon 2000 21:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge list style into main list. Much more well organized than the original article, but I'll leave that to those working on the article to sort out. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/comment Subpages do not exist in the main namespace. But something should be done. One is enough. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Already redundant by main article; also, a list format in the main article is better than the table format, especially since the table presents too much, and often false, information. -- azumanga (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Unlike the current page, this tells information about whether they are still on, are cartoons, or whatever without having to go to each individual page. I do agree that the page should be moved or merged. TheThingy ^Talk 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but revert to this format on the main List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon article, and continue to discuss the format on the talk page to come to a consensus. This page is a exact copy-paste move (minus categories and interwiki links) of an old revision of that page, so it could be deleted with no GFDL issues. There appears to be a format dispute on that page between the table format with airdates, and a plain alphabetic list; the talk page shows no consensus for which format to use, but many similar pages (see Category:Lists of television series by network use a format which categorizes by current, future, former shows, and then subcategorizes by genre, and they usually give airdates as years at least. The alphabetical format, on the other hand, provides no more information than a category (e.g. Category:Nickelodeon shows). The proponents of the alphabetical format complain that airdate information is often unsourced, but information like that is not unsourceable. There are plenty of sources for verifiable information about airdates; and if exact airdates are unknown, then months, seasons, or years can be used. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one or the other. Let the article aditors choose the format the like through consensus.Yobmod (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delte --Allen3 ^talk 01:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FestWiki

Was deleted as a prod/a7 but this has been disputed. The reasons given for the prod were: Unnoted wiki - no news articles, only 3 google hits outside here and it's own site. Fails WP:WEB and unverifyable from reliable sources. That kind of sums it up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, to set the story straight. The creator of the page has no connection with the system, nor the systems sponsors. He created a user profile 7 weeks ago, but apart from creating talk pages to make system related points, has not contributed to the wiki's raison d'etre (if thats the spelling). There were some inaccuracies in the page, but these have been corrected.

Festwiki is a piece of bespoke software, based originally on Usemod. Over time, it has been heavily modified to appear like Mediawiki, and little of the Usemod code survives. By removing some features, it is designed to run on various hosts, and does not require PHP and MySQL.

As a valid and operational piece of software, and listed in List_of_wiki_software, a user base of 60+, and an article base approaching 1400 pages, this is a piece of operational wiki software.

As software still under development, it will hardly have more outside references. It's only current use is for a very narrow field of interest, and it is not publiscised

I feel it would be wrong to remove an entry for an existing piece of operational wiki software on grounds of notability, when its only raison d'etre is to record its existance.

--Keith 20:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I respect your comment Keith, but the real question here is whether or not it passes at least one of the criteria of notability, as specified at WP:WEB. For the three criteria: 1. After a quick search I don't believe it has been the subject of any non-trivial published work 2. I also cannot find any reference to an award given to FestWiki 3. And I find no distribution of FestWiki from an independent and respected source. If any of these criteria can be filled, or a highly reasonable cause that an exception should be made, then deletion would likely be averted, but delete until then. Best Wishes! Boccobrock•T 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I marked this for deletion (PROD) and the same reasons apply. Apart from wikipedia there are 5 only google hits, no news articles, no awards, no books or other reliable interest. Simply noone anywhere cares to write anything about it. Completely unverifyable and unnoted in the wider world - Peripitus (Talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Contention

On the grounds of what I have said previously and the responses, I withdraw my contention to the deletion. I just dont saee how an electronic repository for specific information on a very narrow (sic) subject can actually comply with the criteria specified. --Keith 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Nakon 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates Vs. Ninjas

Contested prod for non-notable webcomic that was first created 2 weeks ago. Closest thing to a reliable source provided by the author is a link to a MySpace page. Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless reliable independent sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 17:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable webcomic. JIP | Talk 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a bigger rationale than WP:JNN. It only gives the impression that you're using the weight of your status to make the vote count more instead of having a decent explanation. The article should be deleted, but this is very unhelpful. SashaNein (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I retract my delete vote and change it to redirect to Pirates versus Ninjas, because judging by the other comments, that seems to be the sensible thing to do. JIP | Talk 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirates versus Ninjas; the comic has generated about as much independent coverage as you'd expect it to in two weeks, i.e. none. No relevant Ghits, and no hits from a reasonable sample of webcomic-related sites--not even directories. (In the unlikely event that it's kept, the article should be renamed to reflect the fact that the comic's title, for whatever reason, has "vz." rather than "vs.") AnturiaethwrTalk 18:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Anturiaethwr. Hard to believe a week old web comic is notable --T-rex 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Anturiaethwr and T-rex. I am involved in this, although not the artist nor the creator of the article, however even I would delete it. Embarrassing. 86.133.33.143 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be deleted as the comic is actually funny, a small wiki article is causing no problem and therefor should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.171.88 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per Anturiaethwr. Seems to be the best option. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online car shopping

This is essentially a how-to guide (something that WP is not) on using the Internet in car-buying research; it is unsourced and largely orphaned; and it is not clear that the topic is notable. A sourced article about e-commerce for automobile selling would be worthwhile, but it would be better to start from scratch than to try to convert this article. Orlady (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. This article reads as a HOWTO purchase a car online. It is not written in an encyclopedic manner, violates large portions of the Manual of Style, and even addresses the reader in first person. The structure of article builds up around a guide, offering advantages and disadvantages for a purchaser, and simply assumes the reader will take such a position. So while this articles topic may be suitable for Wikipedia, this prose fails to be encyclopedic. If the entire article is completely rewritten, then I might consider revising my vote. I however believe it would be easier to start at scratch. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Orlady. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this dead link farm Libertycents (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic of online automobile retailing is notable. There is certainly economic studies about it. But this article's content is in now way suitable as a starting point for such an article. As such it's better to delete and allow it to be built from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Arsenikk. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be copied from some Chinese web site. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I thought I might share that the article was created by a single purpose spam account, Brady01. A quick google search[5] reveals profiles elsewhere with the same name promoting the same site. Libertycents (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary as it is part of a bigger, already covered topic on online shopping. Marlith (Talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hard Candy (Madonna album). PhilKnight (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Candy Promo Tour

AfDs for this article:

A non-notable tour. Arbitrary name. 3 dates? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: A promotional tour does not really deserve its own article, as it is not a notable tour and serves only for promoting the album (obviously). I think in an effort to make it a "major" article, information was stuffed onto the page, but because it's only for three dates, a lot of it is quite trivial. This information can easily be merged into the album page (with any trivial information left out). There should be more effort put into the Sticky & Sweet Tour page. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not really much of a tour --T-rex 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO Merge NO Delete. As you will probably notice this article has been expanded quite a lot since it was originally suggested for merge and now deletion. It has the same information as any of Madonna's other concert world tours and is completely relevant! There is too much information on this page to merge it. Could users please read the article as it is relevant and has a lot of information on it which is also relevant. If this page is deleted then Wikipedia is quite frankly getting ridiculous. 3 Shows? 3 Countries? Why not delete other Madonna World Tours? Who are we to say that just because it had 3 shows it is not relevant? I thought an encyclopedia was to inform people about all issues regarding a subject? This page has many sections which are relevant! JWAD (talk)
Merge to Hard Candy (Madonna album) the article is very nicely formated and sourced, but I still don't see notability that necessitates its own article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hard Candy album, as stated before. Not necessary to have it's own page.--Speedway (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge and Redirect per above.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm...you can't do all three... -Verdatum (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album. Is not so much info here that it wouldn't fit.Yobmod (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostgirl

No real claim is made for this website's notability other than the fact that is the brainchild of someone "acclaimed" - the give-away that something is awry here is that the main editor seems to works under a username suggesting they are the aforesaid "acclaimee". There's some crystal balling that a book will be published in the future. And there is a sort of claim of notability-by-association - it can be accessed via AOL, apparently, and they have loads of visitors. But do not despair, if you follow the links, you'll find an offer of "Clothes, books and merchandise to die for!" TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable website. JIP | Talk 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear-cut case of lack of notability. Could've been prodded, although perhaps the [apparently dedicated] author would've deleted that quickly. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I clicked the link, and America Online does in fact have a website catering to teens, and is in fact hosting Ghost Girl. The article reads, "Ms. Hurley also partnered with America Online in October 2006 to launch www.ghostgirlonred.com an exclusive site on AOL’s RED teen portal, a web destination visited by million of teens each month." It doesn't say how many hits this particular site gets though. America Online apparently felt it was notable, since they let her into their exclusive site seen by millions each month. I see no reason to delete it. Dream Focus (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website. Even number of visitors wouldn't make a difference, if it hasn't been noted (hence notable) in multiple independant RS. Don't AOL host anyone that pays? Yobmod (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every website needs an article. Not notable at all. S. Dean Jameson 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldiscon

Delete - Article fails to assert notability. Article makes very unspecific claims to notability without references. Company was taken over in 1997. Notability isn't conferred or inherited, but this article appears to be about a small company that was bought by a big company, with no indication as to why the small company is notable. Recently tagged as CS7 speedy delete, as an editor claimed that the unreferenced claim "Aldiscon is historically significant to the mobile sector", is sufficient to establish notability. Bardcom (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Withdraw - Notability established as this company invented SMPP, the short message peer-to-peer protocol used for all text messaging. This AfD may be closed. --Bardcom (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not say that it was sufficient to establish notability. I said it was an assertion of notability which gets it through WP:CSD#A7. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book says it was a "major indigenous firm", here are some more book sources and I've added another news reference to the article to go with the two that were already there. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd advise people to check out the references included. To my mind, they do nothing to assert notability, and it's a lot of noise to divert from the core issue. @Phil, we can easily cut to the chase on this - can you summarize here what is notable about this company? --Bardcom (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What makes this company notable is that plenty of reliable sources have chosen to write about it. That's pretty much the definition of notability. I'd also point out that one of those sources (the one I added to the article) says that this was the first company to develop an SMSC, something that hundreds of millions of people now use every day. I would also advise people to check out the references, as I don't see how anyone could do that and not see how this was a notable company. And please, Bardcom, stop using the word "assert" when you clearly don't know what it means. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Phil, you previously asked for a definition and I've provided you one from dictionary.com. Snippy comments such as the one above do not help a civilised conversation. Also, checking the articles Text messaging and SMSC don't back up the claims that say Aldiscon invented the SMSC. Although what I have now found is that Aldiscon invented SMPP, and this I believe makes the company notable. So thank you for helping dig out that notability of this company. --Bardcom (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - concur with Phil that a review of the book results shows notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilography

I declined a speedy yesterday, but the "db-nonsense" tag struck me as strange enough to look further - and it was almost a correct tag. Totally non-notable neologism. External links are a few picture blogs, the second one being where most of the text came from. The term gets google hits, but nothing that supports notability. Tan | 39 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An insignificant photographic technique described in an OR dependent article. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Book sources show this term already in use for a completely different meaning. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept — Werdna • talk 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAGIPEDIA

Unknow website, Google shows 118 results only! O sama K 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per web guidelines - this site is not notable. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deb (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, and it reads like an ad. Boccobrock•T 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another self-promotion article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a non-profit project which aims to share the knowledge online and activate the open source lisence concept in the Arab world. How could it be promotional??!! --Ramez Quneibi (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I suggest write it to be more informative --TAGITI (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime, we become unable to rewrite an article. We don't delete an article which needs rewriting only. Is this website so important? this is the question--O sama K 06:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I rewrote it so it's not an advertisement. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, founder of the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization, mentioned it in an international Internet conference in Dubai and a speech to Jordan's Minister for Political Development and Minister of State for Legal Affairs. He and his organization are notable, so I'd argue that this project he's co-creating is also notable. MeekSaffron (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MeekSaffron. He's rewritten it enough that the promotional concern is largely gone. Not much real evidence of notability, but it's more difficult to make that judgment for a non-Western subject. This may need to be revisited down the road, but I'm inclined to say we give it a chance at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an Arabic version (also on AFD) and looked at one of their references, to Al-Riyadh Daily. According to http://www.knowledgeview.co.uk/node/53 (because WP doesn't yet have an article, deleted or otherwise), "Al-Riyadh Daily is one of the leading newspapers in Saudi Arabia, with over 200 journalists and reporters for offices in many Saudi cities in addition to editorial offices in Cairo, Beirut and other cities." It appears as Other News: Emirates Internet encyclopedia plans to establish an electronic Arabic on the IT section of their site (machine translation), so that doesn't look like a press release. MeekSaffron (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems non-notable website at the moment. Recreate it if it gains many users or notablity. At the moment seems no different from the thousands of other specialist wikis.Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close due to being a procedural nightmare. Per request (and to try and get some real consensus on this) the articles will be re-nominated separately. Shereth 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray witch

Original research. G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have nominated gray magic for deletion as well. Any consensus on this page is the consensus for both articles. --G2.0 USA ^{contributions} 23:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm researching and improving this article, so over time it won't be original research. If it is deleted i request that Gray Witch be added to the Request for articles Page. I'm also in need of people to help improve that article. I asure you if it doesn't get deleted it will be improve. If it is not deleted then I will improve it. In fact i'll start on it now. Thank you. --Condalence ( 14:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found, the article can be expanded, and original research is eliminated. It is a very short article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. Article amounts to what is basically original research. Gray magic should be included for the same reasons. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreement with nominator regarding original research concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gray witch appears in the following texts: Spirit Of The Witch: Religion & Spirituality in Contemporary Witchcraft By Raven Grimassi, Wicca: The Complete Craft By D. J. Conway, Color Casting for Wiccans: Correspondences for More Powerful Spells by Sister Moon, and an inciteful blog (though probably fails WP:V). §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been included in Neopaganism deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It will be improved. Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. I did write reliable resources but they're in hidden text,like this . Plus, I don't see a need to delete it if someone else can improve it.(isn't that how wikipedia works?).--Condalence ] 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick tidy up of the references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced original research. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As is, I just don't think it's Wikipedia material. Condalence, if you really feel that it can be improved to an acceptable level, I would recommend that you move this to a subpage of your userpage and work on it. When you've lengthened it, added something proving notability, and, most importantly, gotten some reliable sources, you can request that it be recreated. If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page! L'Aquatique[review] 23:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Keep per User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC, this AFD is now invalid. L'Aqùatique[review] 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD is listed twice. Not sure how to fix. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the other listing, do you have a url for it? We can just move the votes (gasp, cut and paste move!) over to whichever one is first. Unless you're saying that this AFD appears twice in the list of them. In which case you would just need to edit the list and remove the {{Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/1/2 Man}} string. L'Aquatique[review] 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I think). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT! ALERT!: This AfD was initiated by a banned user! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because the AfD was initiated by a banned user. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because references have been added. AFD was initiated by a banned user. --Condalence ] 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All delete !votes were concerned about sources, and they have been added. It didn't meet speedy keep because subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered. This would have been my closing rationale if I were able to close this out, yet I show restraint. — _Maggot^Syn 06:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: To closing admin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray magic redirects here. So this is a dual AfD (major mistake). — _Maggot^Syn 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To closing admin - this is a mess, for procedural and other reasons. Could you close this and open two separate AfDs instead? I think there are still some major OR issues to be addressed for both articles, but don't want to fall afoul of the procedural niceties. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Saang mein

The result was Withdrawn Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced stub articles about variant of Chinese noodle which I do not believe can be developed short of becoming a recipe book. Redirect reversed by editor who says it should stay because it is part of WP:Food and drink project. In the case of Jook-sing noodles, the source does not appear to be relevant, or even if it is (and I can't see it), the mention is trivial. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and 'saang mein' means essentially any noodles which are of the 'uncooked' variety; thin noodles and thick noodles mean, well...

so you can potentially have 'saang mein' thin noodles and 'saang mein'thick noodles Ohconfucius (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above user has been explicitly nominating chinese food articles for deletions and redirects. The user above is NOT a member of Wikiproject food, and does not appear to show any interest in food. Similar biased deletions were made here. Benjwong (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may not be a member of the project, but I eat plenty of it ;-) and am a Prue Leith trained chef. What is more, as a few examples, I contributed to food articles here, here, here Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We aim to document all Chinese noodle dishes, with a main article, Chinese noodles, and articles for each noodle or noodle dish. Nominator does not properly make his/her case for why our users should not have access to articles about each Chinese noodle dish, for the cuisine eaten by the largest number of people in the world. Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stop trying to put up a smoke screen. Let's talk about your lack of arguments to keep these stubs. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Accusing other editors of trying to perpetrate a smoke screen is highly uncivil. Attempting to impoverish our content by selectively attempting to delete articles about varieties of Chinese noodles eaten by millions of Chinese in the most prevalent cuisine in the world, while failing to attempt to delete comparable noodle dishes from other cultures, does not do a service to our readers, who come from all cultures and will wish to know about all noodle dishes, regardless of culture. Please enrich Wikipedia rather than attempting (or insisting) to deplete it. Badagnani (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - gosh this AfD is getting a little bit too nasty for my liking. I just reminded Badagnani to be civil here and he's now returning the left hook. Please be reminded that just because you believe an article forms part of a wiki-project doesn't mean it's exempt from adhering to WP policies and guidelines. I've pointed out the problems of the articles, so if you care so much about not depleting it, I would suggest that you found some more text and sources to bolster the article instead of attacking me here in the AfD. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if you aim to document all noodle dishes, you are going to need better sources than the noodle's own package. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, sources can be improved. But it isn't exactly the highest priority. So please understand. Benjwong (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There are over 700 thousand hits for this variety of noodle. Spaghetti and meatballs gets about 200 thousand hits. Badagnani (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment counting Ghits is not research. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The suggestion that the proposer has a bias against food, and the slight insinuation that he has a racist reason for this proposal, is nonsense. If the proposer has been nominating many Chinese food dishes, then this could be evidence that they don't assert notabilty, as well as being of poor quality. The reminder that Wikipedia should not become a recipe book is an important one. Apologies if such a comment is against wikiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiyuvraj (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Something consumed by like a million (if not billion) people is probably notable. So I don't know why it was challenged to begin with. Also I am in favor of you guys having pasta, Spaghetti, Spaghetti and meatballs, Macaroni, Macaroni and cheese. To me they are all different. Even if some people think they are the same. Benjwong (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I certainly see the point about the pasta variants - I did have a look before proposing this batch for AfD, but having weak pasta articles (actually not all of them are weak) is not an argument for having weak articles about 'Thin noodles' and 'Thick noodles'. However, there is something rather uncanny about the propensity of the creator of these articles to start off new articles with a single line, often without sources or assertions of notability instead of allowing development within a closer 'parent' topic until time is ripe for its own article, so please don't point the finger at me, but look in the mirror instead ;-). Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no rule that saids articles can only be created when the parent is expanded enough. By that definition everything in Category:Pasta should be deleted until the pasta article is long enough. That would not be right to the cuisine project folks. Benjwong (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with sourcing, otherwise delete. The articles are misnamed as if Chinese people eat all "thick noodles" and "thin noodles" in the world. Even if the naming are based on its Chinese characters, they should add "Chinese" as the distinguishing prefix to each name for English usage. The image of thick noodles looks like a variant of udon (of course Japanese one) and the thin noodles is like some sort of Italian pasta. Besides, the poor sourcing on the article is a big problem.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw In response to Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV)'s suggestion in another AfD, and as a gesture of goodwill, I would withdraw this nomination. I would ask the creator and other staunch defender(s) of the article to please fix the problems of the article as agreed by most who have commented or 'voted' here, instead of indulging in attempts at character assassination to defend the article. Looking back, I guess I could have been more communicative before moving an AfD. I really object to being portrayed as the racist bogeyman and philistine in this. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get administrators to remove these tags then? Benjwong (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that it's now a valid dab page.--Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siderophile

Not a proper disambiguation page, merely two dictionary definitions that (per WP:DICDEF) don't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Delete. Only one of the two linked articles actually includes the term. No objection to creating a proper article about siderophilia (or whatever the correct noun form is) if there is more to be said than simple dicdefs; but nominator is correct that this is a disambig page without a raison d'etre. Deor (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm not really familiar with AfD procedures here, so let me first express my concern: This is, as indicated by the editors above, a real term. Wouldn't it be better to somehow express a need for it to be improved, with a warning that, if nothing changes within a given time period, that it will be deleted as inadequate? I'm just concerned that, once deleted, it may not return. Unschool (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about this adjective has been created in 2005 (at first as a redirect). There was more than enough time to improve it, but not much changed since then. If you can expand it, do so, though I personally don't think it is expandable and there's no point in indefinitely prolonging the deletion of dictionary definitions. If deleted, it may always be recreated at some later point even if I don't really see a need for it to return. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and write a page for the missing article. DGG (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a valid disambiguation page to me. Both siderophilic bacteria and siderophilic elements seem like subjects that could and should support Wikipedia articles. There was an existing redirect to siderophile element, which I changed this page to link to; I added a new stub for siderophilic bacteria based on a list I found in haemochromatosis. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that both entries have articles is more of a reason to delete the dab page then if only one of the entries has an article. A two-article ambiguity, is resolved with a hatnote on the more notable page pointing to the other article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a third entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand siderophilic bacteria. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page, now that two reasonable targets ave been identified or created. --Itub (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig. --SJK (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Random collection of trivia, the (very) small amount of information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article. Quite a lot of the references are blatant original research, too. Black Kite 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire Cat in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of unassociated topics, Wikipedia is not for original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a collection of trivia tied together by the most tenuous of connections, the simple inclusion of the words "Chesire cat" or some variation ("chessy cat," "cheshire smile," in some instances just "Chesire" or "chessy") along with things that in the unsourced opinion of whatever editor happened to spot them reminded the editor in some way of the Cheshire Cat. This was apparently originally split off from the main article but better here than there is not a valid answer to trivia in the main article. This was AFDed about ten months ago and closed no consensus, largely it seems on the poetics of one editor who suggested that the article be treated with "TLC" to "extract what does have merit." Sadly, no editor has taken up that suggestion and it appears that the only items of merit, its Disney adaptation, is already in the main article. I am sympathetic to editors who feel they must constantly battle fellow editors who want to include every trivial mention of everything and I fight those battles too. But garbage dump articles like this are not the way to win those battles. Otto4711 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article not indiscriminate, not a directory and not original research. All we have here is WP:NOEFFORT which is no reason to delete. To demonstrate that the article can indeed be improved, I picked a detail (the image on LSD tabs) and was soon able to find multiple reliable sources and so have cited one. Furthermore, deleting this article would just push the material back into the main article - pointless churning. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is thorouhly indiscriminate, as it seeks to collect every instance of any reference, however oblique, to "Cheshire Cat." To select a few examples more-or-less at random, what is the encyclopedic relationship between Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell, included because in one sentence of a three-season television series he uses the words "Cheshire Cat," MapleStory, which is included because of some non-player character named Fancy, and My Neighbor Totoro, which includes a character called Catbus who can disappear and reappear? For that matter, how is the inclusion of My Neighbor Totoro on the basis of Catbus, which the including editor listed on the basis of his supposed "striking resemblance" to the Cheshire Cat, not original research? It falls under the first definition of "directory," as it is a list of loosely associated topics, connected by nothing but a single mention or implication or alleged "striking resemblance" of something in it to the Cheshire Cat. Some of this garbage will probably end up in the main article, which means that editors need to be vigilant about removing it when it appears instead of foisting their problem off on someone else. As already noted, it will end up back in the main article is not a valid argument. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out your three examples. Bagwell and Catbus stand up and I have cited accordingly. The Maple Story entry is less clear. I have the impression that there's something to it but the entry is obscure and I have found no good sources. So I just took that entry out - easy. So it goes - we check out the entries and improve them or remove them as appropriate. And as I look through the sources, I notice a huge amount of material out there which might support more articles. This cat is clearly highly influential and so we should give it good coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I am not saying that it can't be sourced that T-Bag said "Cheshire Cat" one time in three seasons of Prison Break. What I am saying is that the fact that he did does not mean that there is an encyclopedic relationship between the fact that he said "Cheshire Cat" and a Japanese animated cat that's the size of a bus and disappears and reappears. This article is not an encyclopedic examination of the cultural effect of the Cheshire Cat. It is a list of every random thing in which the words "Cheshire Cat" or some variant are spoken or used ever. You can waste your time sourcing these bits of useless junk if you want, but even if you sourced every single one of them it's still at the end of the day just going to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia. "This one time this guy said 'Cheshire Cat' in a movie and this other time this band sang 'Cheshire smile' in a song" is not the basis for an encyclopedic article. Look at Champagne in popular culture as an example of an actual decent "...in popular culture" article. See how there are actual sources that talk about the impact of champagne in popular culture, and of popular culture on champagne? See how it's not a list of every single time someone sang "champagne" in a song or drank a champagne toast on a TV show? See how there are no such sources regarding the Cheshire Cat? Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. In no case, I have cited the original works which features the Cheshire Cat. All citations reference secondary sources which discuss in some fashion the relationship of the Cat to the work in question. They are thus quite proper sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of "Cheshire Cat" in its entirety from your T-Bag source: "T-Bag is probably the best - which is to say the worst - thing in Prison Break, so I was disconcerted to notice last night that he couldn't pronounce "Cheshire cat". Filtered through T-Bag, it came out as "Cashire cat". A verbally challenged villain is quite endearing." The entire coverage of the CC on LSD tabs from your source: "I heard that there was a type of LSD stamped with the Cheshire cat." The entirety of the coverage from your source for Buscat: unknown, because Google books allows only a snippet view which includes nothing on Buscat or the CC. The Start Trek mention? "Sourced" by a link which does not allow the viewing of the relevant page. None of these sources indicate that any of the items are in any way tied to each other beyond someone happening to have said "Cheshire Cat" or something similar. Not a word indicating that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is an encyclopedic topic or that these examples are anything other than an index of passing mentions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Cheshire cat. The article seems neither indiscriminate nor original research. But neither it or its parent article are particularly long as it is, so it might just as well be merged. JIP | Talk 18:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland - there is no need for this to be it's own article --T-rex 18:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

Strong keep per What Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Article is actively being revised and is a legitimate search term with clear reader interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What Wikipedia is" is a collection of essays on your user page, which do not address the policy issues and have no force. The Five Pillars specifically state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that there is to be no original research, so they actually support deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a collection of essays that interpret the policies and therefore have force. This article, which is unoriginal research, is a discriminate one with clear parameters as indicated by its title and organization and does contain references, which is why the policies actually support keeping it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, essays do not have any force, which is why every essay is tagged at the top with "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And you really ought to know by now, after how many years of your participating in these discussions, that "sourced" does not automatically equal encyclopedic. We delete articles every day that are impeccably sourced because they violate policies and guidelines. The title does not set a clear parameter, as is obvious by the scattershot inclusion of every possible mention of the term, and the fact that the article is divided into sections means absolutely nothing in regards to its indiscriminateness. I could have List of people named John who live in the United States and organize them alphabetically by last name. That sets a clearer inclusion criterion than the title of this article and is also well-organized. Doesn't make it any less indiscriminate. You have not, as you never do in these discussions, addressed the actual policy issues in any fashion other than for all intents and purposes going "no it isn't, no it isn't no it isn't." Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no actual policy based reasons for deletion, however, as you never do in these discussions, so how can I respond to what's not there? If you think there is a matter of sourcing or about scholarly interests in the topic at hand, then please read such sources as "Popular Culture in Political Cartoons: Analyzing Cartoonist Approaches," which discuss for example the use of "John Edwards as the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland in political cartoons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is bedrock policy, drawn from your beloved Five Pillars, so this claim that I have provided no policy-based arguments is both false and baffling. Your link is to an abstract and it does not indicate that the item in question discusses "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" to any significance and thus is not a reliable source. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the article passes it by being consistent with what Wikipedia is and is covered by reliable sources per any reasonable definition of the phrase. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto's repeated claims that the article is indiscriminate seem quite fraudulent. This article was spun off from the main article Cheshire Cat and this is the clear common topic for all this material. The article does not resemble any of the examples of indiscriminate info given by the WP:IINFO policy. The actual case against the article is most clearly stated in the article Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles but we see that this is an essay and so is inadequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assumption of good faith and civility in for all intents and purposes calling me a liar. The fact that this garbage was split off from the main article is irrelevant to whether it should be kept. You know as well as I do, or you should because you've been told it enough times, that the listed items at WP:IINFO are not an exhaustive list of what can be indiscriminate, and even if it were, the article still fails multiple other elements of Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen too many hand-waving references to policy today to be tolerant of such misrepresentation. The topic of this article is clear and precise - the very opposite of indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and will/has been referenced in indep sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the reliable sources, meaning sources that have given significant coverage to the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," that you claim establish the notability of this article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, this article violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:List, and borders original research by attempting to tie together unconnected incidents under the one title. The article does not attempt to be anything more than an index for its subject rather than an article about it, violating Wikipedia's policy on directories. It could be original research if it found to be finding a connection rather than reflecting one. doktorb _words^deeds 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article passes Wikipedia:Lists by being discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost none of those statements you wrote there is true. I'm even having trouble believing 'sincerely'. It is not discriminate, as there is no delimiting document or policy that restricts the growth of the article. Any reference, no matter how trivial or fleeting, will be included in this article in its current form. It is not unoriginal, in that there is no secondary source quoted that refers to the subject of the article. Mentions are made in individual secondary sources of the specific references, but none of the secondary sources quoted mention "the cheshire cat in popular culture" or any variation on that phrase. It is not verifiable because a whopping 11% of the claims made in the article are supported by ANY cited references, primary or otherwise. It is encyclopedic only insofar as it is a collection of knowledge. Things do not become true simply because you state them. they certainly do not grow more true with repetition. Please consider picking your battles and listening to what others have to say in afd. As it stands this habit of writing the same justification for each deletion discussion regardless of the facts seems a little obstructionist to me. OH. and don't bother to warn me about being 'civil' or accusing you of something or violating agf. I'm not making a personal attack. I am being civil, just not saccharine. and I assume good faith at all times. Protonk (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of the statements you wrote there is true. It is discriminate and there is no policy that prevents inclusion of this article. Verifiable references only will be included in the article in its current form. It is unoriginal in that are scondary sources quoted that refer to the subject of the article. At least one secondary source indeed references Cheshire Cat in forms of popular culture, political cartoons for example. It is verifiabe by any reasonable understanding of that term. Things do not become true simply because you state them. They certainly do not grow more true with repetitions. Please consider picking your battles and listening to what others have to say in AfDs. As it stands this habit of writing the same justifications for each deletion discussion regardless of the facts seems a little obstructionist to me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what I'm talking about. This is absurd. You are a caricature of yourself. somehow 11% of contentious claims cited is verifiable? Somehow one secondary source which says this:

Seeing images in 2004, depicting Vice President Dick Cheney as Darth Vader from Star Wars, John Edwards as the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, and John Kerry as Frankenstein’s monster, it is clear that some editorial cartoonists make connections between our popular culture and our political culture."

becomes enough to hinge an article on? That one line mention is precisely what Wikipedia defines as a trivial mention. I provide an argument explaining how the list is not distriminate and you respond with nonsense. You argue, facts to the contrary, that no policy exists preventing the inclusion of this article. The rest of your response can only be construed as baiting me. I can't think of a good reason why you would repeat what I wrote almost verbatim in your response other than that. How did you expect it added to the debate? Protonk (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a matter of clarification. If one reads the article in question (the one from Political Science & Politics), even just the excerpt (though the article CLEARLY confirms this), the connection made by the author is not between the cheshire cat and popular culture but between populare culture and political culture. It is right there in the sentence. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is absurd is that you would devote so much time caricaturing yourself in these discussions rather than helping to improve the article in question. The examples themselves can be used to verify themseleves in many instances. That one article is not the only one on the topic. The Journal of Popular Culture has also had articles addressing the Cheshire Cat, particular in regards to its smile. I provide an argument explaining how the list is discriminate and you respond with nonsense. How do you think that adds to improving the article under discussion? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only article, correct. but in that article there is only one sentence that mentions the cheshire cat (BTW, the subject of this article, not the article in question) and it does so connecting popular culture with political culture, not connecting the cheshire cat with popular culture. this secondary source includes the mention in one line, with no analysis given. The star trek trivia book mentions it in the context of TOS trivia. The blog about Prison break mentions it as a means to complain about a characters enunciation. I haven't read the "journal of popular culture" article but I have no doubt the reference will be trivial or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have "no doubt" about something you "haven't read"? I'll keep looking for more sources, but if you're going to make assumptions about ones you haven't even read, then come on? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes. That's the beauty of oppositional research. I have no doubt that if the article in popular culture contained a dissertation on how the cheshire cat was inextricably linked to popular culture, we would have been made aware of it through the course of this afd. Oh boy and I glad I downloaded it In a 44 page article on the connection between the SMILE and popular culture, what would seem like the perfect place to discuss the cheshire cat, the author makes a reference once:

When my dentist moved out of Suite 1111 of the Medical Arts Building to a small house on the main thoroughfare between downtown and the mall area, there were some raised eyebrows among the dental community. But when he had a Cheshire cat grin painted in lurid colors on his picture window proclaiming this as The Smile Shop, it was going too far for staid dentistry. The ethics of advertising in the professions was in 1975 an open topic, and not only among dentists; even lawyers were moot on the issue. Ethics aside, though, this disembodied grin was simply infra dig, the sort of thing you might find in Tijuana or Bombay, but certainly not in Minnesota! For twenty years, it grinned at the passing parade, though my dentist sold the practice years ago.

Among the over 40 works cited, Alice and Wonderland is not among them, nor is any work referencing alice and wornderland. That's it. A throwaway comment. god that makes me happy. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could that possibly make you happy? Wouldn't you rather find sources that help improve an article and further our project's goal of being a comprehensive compendium of human knowledge? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me happy to know that an improper citation was corrected. It makes me happy to know that one rationale (a gated article that looked like it could have provided significant coverage to the layperson) to keep an article turned out to be hollow. It makes me happy to know that at the completion of this afd, we will be one page closer to ensuring that all articles represent the five pillars as best as they can. It makes me happy to know that I can find sources and logic in order to advance my argument. Also, there you go suggesting that deleting an article is inherently unethical. AND there you go pretending like your goal (a comprehensive source for human knowledge) is the same as the foundations, when it is demonstrably different. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't/shouldn't it make you happier to improve the article instead? Fortunately by the completion of the AfD in which there will most likely be no consensus, editors will be able to continue improving the article and therefore the project. My "goal", if I have any, is consistent with the founders: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. Anything else would be anti-academic and against encyclopedic tradition: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I shouldn't be happier improving the article instead. Those quotes don't help, as you consistently trot those out (and one sentence from the first pillar) as a rationale to include content. What you exclude are the parts of the five pillars (and the rest of the first pillar) that suggest that not all things should be included in wikipedia. This, as a matter of fact, was not stated policy when wales made that quote you mention. the notability debate didn't really get into full swing until later. Also, as Diderot was the editor of a paper encyclopedia, I have to assume that in practice (and that's what we are talking about, the practice of maintaining an encyclopedia) he maintained some sort of editorial discretion. Protonk (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes help, because they demonstrate academic and encyclopedic and even wikipedia tradition. As an educator, I strongly believe that so long as it is verifiable, then there is no really logical reason to suppress knowledge on a paperless encyclopedia with thousands of editors. And if you think because of our disagreements (you on delete and me on keep) in a couple of recent AfDs that somehow this suggests I do not believe in "editorial discretion," then you should keep in mind that I have argued and even nominated to delete dozens of unverifiable, pedophilic, unfixable, nonsense, disturbing, original research, hoaxes, how tos, etc. I really only argue to keep articles that I actively also try to improve and that I can tell a good deal of other respectable editors see value in. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how does anything in that paragraph refute the claim that you apply your own standards to articles for deletion rather than community standards? Or more specifically, apply a chosen subset of community standards Protonk (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is apply his own arbitrary standards to aricle deletion rather than community standards it seems to be you, as a lot more people than who have argued to delete here worked on the article, read it, and argued to keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9 people have voted keep, including people voting to merge or redirect. 12 people have voted delete or strong delete. Among those who voted keep/merge/redirect, only 6 have contributed one edit or more to the article in question. How is 6 a lot more than 12? Protonk (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also taking into account the previous discussion and those who visit the article in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

Delete. Any interesting information can (and should) be in the Cheshire Cat article. The "sources" provided are of instances of the Cheshire Cat appearing (and disappearing) in various media, including the original story. These instances are not about the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture", so the article is currently unsourced. The list is indiscriminate, as it includes extremely marginal cases. The article is original research. I would expect an article on something in popular culture to discuss what it represents, why it resonates with people, and how it has outgrown its creator. This article has none of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we do that then we would merge and redirect without deleting per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid I don't understand why you have this attachment, or as the Buddhists call it, Taṇhā, to the edit histories. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see GFDL#Conditions. A cut/paste copy which breaks the contribution history breaks the license agreement. This is one reason why deletion is tightly controlled and should be used lightly. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But likewise when we have an article like this were deletion is clearly preferable, the edit history matters very little. This article does not bind together information, it attempts to prove a link; a subtle but clear difference. Itss deletion (and that of the edit history) is merely a consequence of it failing many policies, as already suggested elsewhere within this discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position. While there are clearly numerous instances of a Cheshire Cat appearing in a variety of locations, there is no indication that there is a single reliable source that has yet discussed "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as a whole. --Allen3 ^talk 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the position advanced or conclusion reached by this article which is improper synthesis? All the article seems to be asserting is that the Cheshire cat has been referenced in the listed works. And it seems that you agree youself that this is so. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory being advanced is that these individual instances in various films, books, and other locations are also instances of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture". Unless you are arguing that everything ever mentioned in any book, film, song, or other location is automatically elevated to being a significant instance of said object in popular culture, this is just an unbounded list of disconnected instances. Just because a similar idea appears in different locations does not mean that these locations are automatically linked. --Allen3 ^talk 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say unbounded list of disconnected instances like you're quoting something but when we follow the blue link, we just find WP:IINFO which does not say this. This inference is an improper synthesis. It seems doubly flawed in that the list is both connected and bounded. It is connected by the Cheshire Cat and bounded by the scope of Popular culture and so excludes the numerous references to the Cheshire Cat in science, say. Your rationale is like the Cheshire Cat - you have the frown but no body. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present this article composed of nothing but a long list of examples faces one of three fates:

The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is accepted and this article is deleted as synthetic original research.
The unsourced assertion that these examples are connected is rejected and this article is deleted as an indiscriminate collection of information.
Reliable sources are provided showing that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a concept that has previously been published outside of Wikipedia.

I am willing to accept any of these three outcomes. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence places the burden of providing needed sources onto those wishing to keep the article. If you truly wish to save the article I would suggest that directing your efforts toward locating the needed sources. --Allen3 ^talk 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already been looking through the sources and have cited some. The main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources containing millions of words. I fail to see any reason for haste. The only reason we're here is that Otto is scratching an itch. If the article is not retained in its current form then the content will just go back to the main Cheshire Cat article (where I now have much more to add). This activity is not productive and per WP:IAR should be terminated forthwith so that we use our time here better. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason we are here is because in the course of trying to improve Wikipedia by better organizing and naming a category structure I stumbled across this policy-violating article. That you feel the rude and unfounded need to reduce my actions here to "scratching an itch" speaks far more of you than it does of me in your complete and utter failure to assume good faith on my part and also speaks to the fundamental weakness of your position. Address the nomination, not the nominator. And again, if you think this stuff doesn't belong in the main article, then watchlist the main article and remove it if it gets added. That someone might litter the main article is not an excuse for building a garbage dump. Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incident which brought you here also seems to be disruptive. Proposing that a category be renamed when you don't have a better alternative in mind seems to be similar unproductive churning. Such acivity does not help us improve the encyclopedia - it diverts us into empty discussion and conflict instead. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you would think that bringing a category with an ambiguous name to the attention of the community in the hope of building a consensus as to what the best name for the category would be is "disruptive" demonstrates amply that you have no idea how CFD works and little idea how the consensus-building process of Wikipedia as a whole functions. Anyone looking at that CFD who isn't viewing it as an opportunity to lob another personal attack against me should be able to figure out that it is generating discussion about the best rename, which is one of the functions of Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion. The only one trying to turn Wikipedia into a battleground here is you, through your incivility, failure to assume good faith and your personal dislike of my point of view. Otto4711 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal dislike of "in popular culture" article is not a valid reason to delete them and calling those you disagre with "disruptive" or "incivil" does not advance a discussion about content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal love of hoarding trivia is not a valid reason to keep them. You love trivia so much, find or start up a Trivipedia and have at it. Additionally, you are misrepresenting my position regardling IPC articles. I do not categorically dislike IPC articles. Inded, I have linked in this very discussion an example of an IPC culture of which I not only approve, I !voted to keep when it was up for AFD. What I dislike is garbage dumps of trivia masquearading as articles that get created because editors can't be arsed to delete it and instead split it off from a main article and abandon it. I would appreciate in future if you are going to ascribe beliefs to me that you ascribe beliefs that I actually hold. I do thank you for pointing out that calling people with whom you disagree "disruptive" is bad form and I hope Colonel Warden, the only one in this discussion who has called anyone disruptive, will heed your words. As for calling out incivility, you don't seem to have a problem with it when it suits your purposes (*cough*DRV yesterday*cough*) so your hand-wringing over such charges here is...puzzling. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need when Wikipedia already is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs per its First pillar. If you believe these articles have potential, then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Yes, I don't mind calling people out for it when their only comment in a discussion is in effect to be incivil and not comment on the article under discussion, whereas here, Colonel Warden has in fact commented on the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your first sentence means. As for the second, I think I've made it quite clear that I don't believe this article has potential. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first sentence, you said that the article should be in a trivia encylopedia, which is why I'm saying that Wikipedia, as an combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs can include what some deem trivia as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Trivia sections are heavily frowned upon and usually tagged with notices to either integrate the trivia into the main text or delete it. An article composed entirely of trivia, as this one is, has no main text into which it can be integrated. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, which an article like this is consistent with. The overwhelming majority of editors actually smile upon trivia sections, which is why they make them, edit them, and defend them in AfDs in which a handful of only the same editors show up arguing to delete. This article is not entirely trivia as it has already been improved somewhat since the Afd began. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an exhaustive compendium of knowledge. How can you have been here as long as you have and still not understand that? Editors make all sorts of unsuitable additions to articles. The fact that there are other editors who are as unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't mean that they should be ignored. These constant appeals to "there's other guys doing it" are the stuff of children, so to answer at that level, if other Wikipedia editors jumped off a roof, would you? Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed an exhaustive compendium of knowledge. How can you have been here as long as you have and still not understand that? The unsuitable articles editors make are hoaxes, copy vios, and how tos and I have argued to delete and even nominated to delete such articles dozens of times now. The fact that a minority of vocal editors want to enforce overly restrictive inclusion criteria on the community is not really consistent with encyclopedic and academic traditions per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism, and User:McJeff#My wikipedia opinions. Comparing it to jumping off a roof is again apples and oranges, because an article like this one is unquestionably created and edited in good faith with editors actively working to add more reliable sources to it. It is not comparable to the example you suggest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Clearly, the existence of multiple processes to remove information of Wikipedia proves beyond question that Wikipedia is not, and was never intended to be, an exhaustive compendium of knowledge. Were that the case, there would be no need for AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD, etc. because there would be no standards for removing anything. And you contradict your assertion about Wikipedia's exhaustiveness by acknowledging that it is not for such things as copyvios and how-to guides. Surely how-to guides are part of the corpus of human knowledge, yet they have no place on Wikipedia. No one is questioning the good faith of the editors who contributed to this article, so invoking their good faith has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Invoking more essays, which are nothing more than the opinion of the person who wrote them and have no weight in this discussion, means nothing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider Otto's actions disruptive. In this case, it would have a lot simpler to propose a merger of the article back into the main article from which it was spun-off. Or to have sought to improve the article. But instead of discussing the matter on the talk pages for the articles in question, Otto rushes straight here with a repeat AFD and we get all this unnecessary drama. As for the language used, we should note that Otto starts this AFD with a polemic which talks of "battling" other editors whose work is described as "garbage". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) I consider repeated false accusations of "disruption" to be an unprincipled attack by one editor on another. If you truly believe that an AFD nomination 10 months after a no consensus close and no improvement to the article is "disruption" then I suggest you report me at WP:ANI instead of going on about it here in an attempt to sway the nomination. A merger is not appropriate, because the information is unencyclopedic. It doesn't belong in its own article and it doesn't belong in the main article. Since a merger is inappropriate, discussing a merger on the talk pages is pointless. There is nothing wrong with what I have done precedurally either here or at the CFD I linked and it's ridiculous that you would try to claim otherwise. And yes, I did use the word "battling." Do a search of some similar AFDs. You'll see that I'm far from the first person to use such language. Indeed, in these AFDs there is generally at least one editor whose !vote is "whatever happens, do not merge" precisely because they feel like they're in a battle with the people who want to include every little "Gus saw a woodchuck" reference to everything regardless of how trivial it is or how little it has to do with the topic of the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have already agreed in principle that such information can be encyclopedic thanks to your example of Champagne. The rest is then a matter of content editing to select and source the detailed content so as to improve the article per WP:IMPERFECT. You have provided no evidence to show that this cannot be done in this case and have provided evidence by a good example that it may be. If you wish to exterminate a particular woodchuck then you can edit the article to remove it, as I have done. Wikipedia is not Caddyshack. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I have agreed is that such material may be encyclopedic in the presence of reliable sources that discuss substantively the concept of "Foo in popular culture." I have not and do not agree that a list of every mention of Foo makes for an article. And Caddyshack featured a gopher, not a woodchuck. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR—a collection of unassociated references and (often debatable) allusions does not an encyclopedia article make. Deor (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The are associated references that make an wikipedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not associated with one another any more than a collection of quotations about the same topic (specifically discouraged in WP:NOTDIR) are. Deor (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are only about a the Cheshire Cat and only about it in popular culture; the main concern in any event is the topic and if you're concerned about the way the article looks then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, because the topic does have potential per such sources as the one about its use in political cartoons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although an intelligent section could be written in the Cheshire Cat article about persons inspired by Lewis Carroll, this is essentially a scorecard of every known mention of the phrase "Cheshire cat" in a film, book or song. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Were that possible, then the way to go would be to merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no reason to list every minor use of the character in every single piece of media. The main article should have a brief two or three paragraph section that sums up all of that kind of information instead. TTN (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of reasons to do so, otherwise editors would not have created such an article or continue to defend it here. If you think it could be used elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of reasons for this article, and all of them are terrible. The fact that people happened to work on an article, even if a lot of people worked on an article, doesn't mean that the article is suitable for Wikipedia. A thousand editors could collaborate on an article about how Ronald Reagan was an alien from the planet Remulac, and another thousand editors could show up at AFD to defend it. Doesn't mean the article's gonna stay. AFD, as you really ought to know by now, is not a vote. The number of people supporting each side is irrelevant; it is the strength of the arguments that counts. So far there has been no refutation of the arguments made in favor of deletion beyond what amounts to "nuh uh! Otto4711 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet no valid or good reasons have been presented to delete it. The article is suitable for Wikipedia, because a sizable number of editors want to work on it and come here for it. Ronald Reagan being an alien and this article is apples and not even oranges but say footballs. I agree that AfDs is not a vote, but a discussion and so far there have been no really coherent arguments that justify outright deletion, only arguments for improvement. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several valid and good reasons have been offered for deletion, and have been answered with WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While several valid and good reasons have been offered for keeping the article, I really only see WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the basis for wanting to delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's the old "I know you are but what am I" line of defense. Hardly compelling. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a compelling reason to delete in any event. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, which is why I don't raise it. I leave that to those who don't have anything else to argue. Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are some good examples of the use of Cheshire Cat in popular culture but the majority is plot observations in films, tv series, etc. Just add a paragraph in Cheshire Cat with 2-3 good examples. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do that, then we should merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the material was originally split from the lead article then it is in that article's history already. There is no need for a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legitimate search term. Anyone interested in the Cheshire Cat is going to search for "Cheshire Cat". Get real. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be considerate to your fellow editors and readers. When this many editors work on an article in good faith and thousands read it every month, it is a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how any of those readers found the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is first on Google hits, you'd have to think that's how some found it. If you want to get a better sense, then why not ask all those who worked on it on their userpages, notify them of this AfD, and see what they have to say? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course searching for the exact article title on Google will bring it up first thing, that Google search proves nothing. Indeed Google searches are not exactly relied upon in AfD discussions full stop. doktorb _words^deeds 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is the first article on Google, that would seem quite a strong indicator that there is little or no independent reliable sourcing for the topic, indicating that the topic is not notable. The article's position on Google, however, sheds no light on how people found the article by searching Wikipedia or indeed if people found the article searching through Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I strongly encourage you as the nominator of this discussion to post one of those AfD notice templates on the talk pages of everyone who contributed to the article to see how they found it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Casliber and those whose keeps have vanished with the termination of the earlier AfD. Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture seems to provide references for this remarkable cat's further exploits. The cat is a major character in Jasper Fforde's books, not just there for a cameo. There surely is critical material on the CC as he appears in his Thursday Next novels.John Z (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five highlighted references in the Carroll book, one is a quote from a piece of pedophile fanfic, one is a quote from a review of another book and three discuss the possible inspiration to Carroll in creating the character. None of them speak to any level of significance to the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." There is no mention of the CC in Fforde's article, nor is there mention of the CC in the articles on any of the Thursday Next books. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 24 references to the CC in that book (Hit "next"), some of them on restricted pages. As for Fforde, our Lost in a Good Book article mentions the CC, haven't checked the others. Having read the books, I assure you that the CC is one of the most important and memorable characters, much more important to the action and in many more scenes than her usually nonexistent husband Landen, say, impressions otherwise are a defect in our articles on them then. Going to google books and searching for "cheshire cat" "popular culture" provides some more likely refs. Anita Silvey's The Essential Guide to Children's Books and Their Creators points out that "...memorable characters, such as the Hatter, March Hare, Dormouse, and Cheshire Cat, to name a few, have become inextricable parts of our popular culture."John Z (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all that the book says about the subject, in 500+ pages. Hardly the sort of substantive discussion of the topic that can serve as a reliable source, as corroborated by footnote 2 of WP:N: "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial." Otto4711 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that book is an RS and the quoted statement is appropriate to include in the article. Because of its brevity, it is of course also correct that it does little to prove notability of the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" on the ground of significant coverage. But it does go toward proving that the "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a notable topic on the ground of the content of this reliably, indeed authoritatively, sourced quotation itself. What it says is tantamount to saying that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a notable topic. A one sentence mention by an authority on computers that "Someone should write a book on the history of IBM, it is strange that no one has" would clearly be evidence of the notability of IBM. Cheers, John Z (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is a plain misreading of his point. The fact that the book mentions the Cheshire Cat only once does not make it unreliable--were we to depend on that book for any subject where it had significant coverage, then it would do. The fact that it only has a one line mention makes it a trivial mention in a reliable source. the footnote on triviality is in WP:N, not WP:RS. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled. I understand and agree with your and Otto's point, which he expressed somewhat infelicitously but with his meaning clear. I was clarifying the reason why this particular sentence does go toward notability of the topic, in a different way from "significant coverage," which is why I pointed it out. By the way, it seems to me the references I provided above may go some way towards answering some of your requests. Cheers,John Z (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content and discuss IPC guideline This is the perfect example of the low end of the IPC spectrum: a subject that has had some pop culture impact, but not really enough to warrant an article devoted to that subject. This article should never have been created, the section should have been trimmed to sourcable and notable examples. In this case, this content can be condensed and merged since the orignal article is not long at all. And since these articles keep coming up at AfD, I think it time to make some clear and strong guidelines about the inclusion criteria for IPC sections. We all seem to agree that a list of times someone just mentions SubjectX is unencyclopedic, but we need more to go on that just that, especially for the different categories that usually crop up (film, television, fiction/literature, music, video games etc.). --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR, WP:INFO, and vast majority of it is unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can help reference it and we would appreciate the effort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable use of significant themes is appropriate article content, and notable here means the use in media that have Wikipedia articles. That makes it discriminating, not indiscriminate. I cant see why this is considered low end, the importance is proven by the notable artists who use it. If it werent notable and significant for their work, they would not use it. we are not qualified to decide on the importance of fictional themes, we just notice whether the relevant parts of the world think it important. If they do, then its notable. These articles are often opposed because some of the content is unsourced--but I have never seen other articles proposed for deletion on that ground, for it is fully accepted that the solution is to source what can be sourced, and delete what cannot be verified--and I point out that primary sources are acceptable for fictional content unless their actual presence is disputed. As Nick says, we do need a criterion--but the criterion is the presence in the work and nothing more--mere mention in a film in particularly is never accidental, but the use of appropriate images is the essence of the art form. In any even, this is a content question for individual pieces of content, not a deletion question. DGG (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This dude said 'Cheshire Cat' in a TV show" is not a "theme." To claim that the mere utterance of a two-word phrase is a "theme" is nonsensical. The notion that the use of a two-word phrase is notable because of the notability of the people who use it is wrong-headed, because notability is not inherited. Your assumption as to the reasons that any particular person uses a particular two-word phrase, in the absence of reliable sourcing that discusses why they chose that particular two-word phrase and not another phrase, is wholly your opinion and amounts to original research. Yes, primary sources are acceptable for documenting the presence of the two-word phrase, but they are completely and utterly insufficient to establish anything else about the two-word phrase beyond its simple presence. Your comments do not address the substance of the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you may just possibly have found one bad item. that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, there's only one bad example in that entire article. The entire article is a bad example. And I'm still waiting for something even remotely resembling a reliable source that the mere mention of a thing constitutes a "theme." Do you really believe that the Cheshire Cat is a "theme" of "Prison Break" because it was mentioned one time in three years? DO you really believe that "The Outsiders" has as its theme the Cheshire Cat because one character said "chessy cat"? Or that the Cheshire Cat is a them of the comic strip Garfield because in one strip out of 30 years of publication the CC was referenced? Bollocks. If you really believe that then you have absolutely no understanding of literature and if you don't believe it you're arguing in bad faith. Either way, this "theme" business is nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, widely identifyable classical charicter with mentions in multiple non trivial scholarly and media coverage.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if the article on the character were under discussion, the notability of the character would be relevent. It's not. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I probably cannot add anything to the strong and nuanced defense already summoned for the nomination. Otto is dead on. An article like this needs some sort of unifying secondary document discussing the subject of the article in any depth whatsoever. were there a source out there making a connection between allusions to the chesire cat and a broader theme in popular culture, I would be the first to !vote keep. Otto provided a perfect example of an IPC article in the form of champagne. Specifically an article on the subject should not be a disconnected set of references. That is SPECIFICALLY what is meant by discriminate. If there is no overarching subject (and no source for that subject) we are free to include any reference made to the Chesire cat in any work at any point. This is literally what the article in question is, a list of references. When SECONDARY sourcing comes along that asserts some connection between the cheshire cat and culture in general, we may include the subjects listed in that article. I don't see how this is hard. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary sources have already been mentioned throughout the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another canard. The nominator and others have gone through GREAT pains to illustrate exactly what they mean by a secondary source illustrating the topic itself. You have responded by noting (literally true though it may be) that secondary sources exist. Of course they exist. It is plain as the day is long--I don't even have to navigate off wikipedia in order to tell that secondary sources are listed in the reference section. There is a difference between secondary sources that serve to verify parts of the text (like the John Edwards reference) and secondary sources that provide the foundation for the article. That difference has been painstakingly detailed in the course of this afd and excellent examples exists in Champagne in popular culture. Why can't you even acknowledge the discussion of secondary sourcing for the article honestly? You participated in that discussion. You know what Otto and Allen3 wrote. Clearly, from the tone and content of my comment, I know as well. Why waste the time by writing a response as though the entire line of argument never occured? Protonk (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Points which have been effectively refuted by myself and others and we keep working to find and add additional sources (notice the article has evolved since it's nomination. Why can't you even acknowledge the discussion of secondary sourcing for this article honestly? Why waste the time by writing a response as though the entire line of agrument never occured? The bottom line is that the article is actively being improved, is a legitimate search term, and Wikipedia gains nothing by deleting it. Why would anyone want to delete something that is clearly not a hoax or libelous when editors are indeed working to improve it? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, they haven't been effectively refuted. I've more than acknowledged the discussion honestly, I've logged on to my university access and read some of the articles in question that are behind paywalls. You claim it is a "legitimate search term" but Otto showed quite clearly that if this is the most prominent link on a google search, the likelihood of wikipedia being the instance of first publication for this list is high. Your response to that? "Which is why I strongly encourage you as the nominator of this discussion to post one of those AfD notice templates on the talk pages of everyone who contributed to the article to see how they found it." As to the notion of whether or not wikipedia gains from deleting an article, that is quite honestly both beyond the scope and irrelevant. If wikipedia gained nothing from deletion of articles, non-libelous material would never merit consensus to delete. Ever. Consensus clearly favors deletion of greater than 0 non-hoax/non-libel articles, so somewhere along the line the mechanism for action in the wikipedia community moved to delete something. furthermore, WP:N/WP:NOT both hold articles to a standard higher than non-hoax/non-libel. So at this point it is a non-issue asking if wikipedia gains from deletion. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have been reaosnably refuted. Wikipedia gains from deleting hoaxes, libel, how tos, etc., but not from articles created in good faith that are actively being worked on and that a good deal of editors believe have value. A handful of editors in a five day AfD should not reasonably trump that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, saying something doesn't make it true. If Otto explains that google search looking like this is a sign that wikipedia is probably the instance of first publishing and you respond by saying that we ought to ask editors how they found the article, HOW is that a refutation? Protonk (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that that is what you're doing? Instead of going back and forth with me, why not help to see how we can improve the article and what we can save? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Otto, I have no interest in seeing this article improved unless that improvement comes from some secondary source making a claim about the connection between the cheshire cat and popular culture. Barring such a source, the article is irredeemable. Besides, this time spent on afd is not exactly time I would normally spend editing or researching, so the comparison doesn't work for me. Also, stop telling me that I'm declaring something to be true without any supporting argument. That is incorrect. We can sit here and engage in gainsaying all night, but a reasonable, third party observer will be able to tell who is participating honestly in this discussion and who is stonewalling. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they will see that I am participating honestly as I am actually making efforts to improve the article in question. Simply going back and forth with someone is time not spent improving whatever articles you do think worthwhile, which by the way I'd always be willing to help you with (and I say that in good faith and absolutely not sarcastically). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete my edits. diff. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOT.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article however is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. A collection of essays do not control what others do. Stop citing it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What collection of essays? I didn't link to anything in my reply to you? Anyway, I don't need to cite essays when the topic is notabile and verifiable and therefore meets what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to, I've seen you refer to it several times. Stop noting it, as there is no such policy as what wikipedia is. The subject is not notable, it should be delete or merged, and it violates WP:NOT. Why don't you respond with an actuall policy instead of pointing to a list of essays.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs/_Improve 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoted from the policy page:
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a policy about what Wikipedia is. The First pillar says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The subject is notable and should be kept (I would be okay with a merge and redirect without deletion) as it is consistent with the First pillar. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
.

There, the policy, right on the pillar you noted.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, how is the subject notable?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I believe the article passes as it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on popular culture or on fiction. The article as evidence by the efforts of myself and others in this discussion clearly "strives for verifiable accuracy", is certainly not "personal opinions, experiences, or arguments," and nor is it a "soapbox or advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." Nor is the article a "newspaper or a collection of source documents". Thus, the article is consistent with that policy. The fact that multiple editors have worked on it, argued to keep it, and visit the article in addition to the efforts to add sources indicates notability to a sufficient enough portion of our contributors and readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of editors who have worked on the article does not indicate notablity. Please, read the policy that I have cited over and over and over again, instead of evading. This article is an indiscriminate collection of information, which violates What Wikipedia is Not, an actuall policy on Wikipedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is discrminate collection of specific references of a specific thing (the Cheshire Cat) in specifically organized examples in popular culture. It is consistent with our First pillar, which is also an actual policy on Wikipedia. I have read that Not policy and I, along with several others, who argued to keep including established editors do not believe it fails it. Plus, if we look at books on popular culture, we'll find sufficient references to the Cheshire cat to develop the non-list elements of the article. See for example, here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the twenty books at the other end of that link appears to have a shred of discussion of the topic of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." As with the other trivial mentions already in the article, they merely mention the words "Cheshire cat" within their texts. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have enough that we can use to at least justify a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a policy. Please scroll to the bottem of the page where it says this is an overview. It references policies, it isn't one itself.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If worse comes to worst, we can always say to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as removing this article outright prevents us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." In this instance, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion without prejudice for restoration as additional sources are added, i.e. assuming sources like those I linked to from Amazon.com are exploited as well during the AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article prevents us from improving Wikipedia, because it encourages the retention of these sorts of articles, that pretend to be about a topic but are not, that have no reliable secondary sources that are about the article topic and that are nothing more than passing mentions of a particular thing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These article should be improved not deleted and as has been pointed out above, they have reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom and others above me make very good points. This is just a messy collection of trivia and many of the items listed cannot be reliably cited. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STOP_MINDLESSLY_GAINSAYING_ANY_DELETE_RATIONALE_OFFERED_IN_AFD It isn't constructive to the debate. It adds needless frustration for editors who are REALLY searching to persuade. It adds no new information or argumentation and it require people to needlessly reiterate their rationale. It is borderline trolling. Stop. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STOP_MINDLESSLY_GAINSAYING_ANY_DELETE_RATIONALE_OFFERED_IN_AFD It isn't constructive to the debate. It adds needless frustration for editors who are REALLY searching to persuade. It adds no new information or argumentation and it require people to needlessly reiterate their rationale. It is borderline trolling. Stop. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being exceedingly confrontational, bordering on incivil. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Protonk is being exceedingly confrontational, bordering on incivil. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you already know, my comment was directed at you. I respectfully suggest you to step away from the computer and take a moment to consider whether copypasting others' comments and intentionally taking them out of context is truly helping Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching AfDs with the idea that it's your mission to delete article and expressing elsewhere that you would never argue to keep does not help Wikipedia nor reflect a willingness to consider the actual discussion. In any event, I have suggested to Protonk that we agree to disagee here and so have no intention of commenting to or about him further and hope that he will do the same so that a productive discussion can begin. I hope that you will not enflame things between he and I any further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for sockpuppetry and vote fixing. I think that is an inappropriate way to approach AFDs, does not help Wikipedia, and does not indicate a willingness to consider the actual discussion. Again, I respectfully suggest that you take a moment away from the computer and think about whether or not continuing this discussion is beneficial to the project. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you were blocked for sock puppetry and vote fixing. I was unblocked, because the allegations against me weren't actually true. Notice User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Account history, I never actually used my alternate accounts in the same AfDs. A checkuser showed that these other accounts alleged to be mine weren't. I respectfully suggest that you take a moment away from the computer and think about whether or not continuing this discussion is beneficial to the project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also unblocked, but my block duration was a lot shorter than yours. Also, I was only blocked once. The section on your account history was interesting. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser showed I had two other accounts that I never used in the same discussion. You had User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:Pilotbob, User:Doctorfluffy, User:Doctorfluffytemp, User:Doctorfluffytemp2, User:Doctorfluffytemp3, User:Doctorfluffytemp4, and User:Doctorfluffytemp5. Anyway, like I said though why not get back to the article under discussion rather than rehashing our general disagreements or just going back and forth? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. you were the one who decided to drudge up diffs from last year. But... I guess we can start talking about the article again, since you asked nicely. What aspect would you like to discuss first? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be done that would make you switch to keep? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am unsure if anything would make me vote keep. I find the concept of the article to be flawed - it's just a list of random junk. I would need multiple reliable sources talking specifically and in depth about Cheshire Cat's impact on popular culture, not sources that merely mention Cheshire Cat, Alice in Wonderland, or Alice in Wonderland's impact on popular culture as a whole. To repeat, sources specifically about the cat's effect on popular culture. Please please do not link me to search engines with the strings "cheshire cat" and "popular culture" plugged in. Assuming such sources exist, all the list style trash (basically the entire article) would need to be removed and replaced with prose written in an academic, formal tone that conveys the content of the sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have been and would appreciate the help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address Doctorfluffy's point: until this AFD started, little to nothing had been cited. From a standing start, I cited several items chosen at random or by others and found little difficulty in doing so. I have further been impressed by the sources that others have brought to the table such as Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture. So, the sourcing has improved rapidly when required and any remaining weakness is due to a lack of effort per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOEFFORT rather than the inability to do so. In this, the article is little different to most Wikipedia articles which likewise contain predominantly poor sourcing. Moreover, there are no facts here which require extravagant sourcing - the facts presented are not controversial or implausible. The sourcing issue is thus a straw man and insufficient grounds to delete. All that remains from Dr.Fluffy's rationale is the word trivia which means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the word "trivia" and put a "WP:" in front of it you actually get an editing guideline, which clearly shows that the word "trivia" does not equate merely to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that guideline does not say that trivia should be deleted. It is a style guideline which advises against collections of miscellania which are, by their nature, too random to be considered good writing style. In cases such as ours, it advises: Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"). That's what we have here - a focussed list. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learn about the usage of Q.E.D.? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you take a look at the actual pages in the much bandied-about "Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture," you would see that almost all of the visible references to the Cheshire Cat deal with Carroll's inspiration in creating the cat, not the cat's effect on popualr culture. There have yet to be reliable sources which are about the subject of this article, which is "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." You can verify that every item on the list exists until the cows come home; proving that they exist does not prove that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" in and of itself is an encyclopedic topic. Sources that address the topic of the article please. I've asked nicely for them ever so many times... Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we considered the cat alone to be insufficient as an influence on popular culture then we would merge with Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland as suggested above. Deletion would still not be appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now you would ridiculously suggest suggest that T-Bag saying "Cheshire cat" in one episode of Prison Break means that Prison Break was "influenced by Alice in Wonderland"? An article which, by the way, is in at least as bad a shape as this one is if not worse. Deletion is appropriate because, say it with me now, there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. A list of times something is said is not a discussion of its influence on popular culture. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4

Keep Sources are good enough to support the existance of the article. I believe the standards of inclusion are being here raised beyond reason and precedent for this article in particular.--Firefly322 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not beyond reason or precedent to expect that there be reliable sources that substantively cover a subject for there to be an article on the subject. Which specific sources presented here do you believe substantively cover the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture"? Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like this that states, "Cheshire cats found numerous adaptations in modern pop culture, and the famous feline grin is reminiscent of a dubious human character that the modern world represents." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But this article does not explore that train of thought. It explores one episode of Prison Break, and a multiude of tenuous links. It fails to find a common theme, so it spreads itself about trying to tie together loose ends. doktorb _words^deeds 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or this, which states "It is now common to make reference to the Cheshire cat in pop culture and day to day conversation, using the analogy 'to grin like a Cheshire cat'." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you have one some random selections of prose which use the article title. Now justify how the phrase is a concept, and this concept notable, becuase neither you, nor this article, proves it one bit. doktorb _words^deeds 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is multiple sources it suggests notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, multiple sources do not automatically suggest notability if they don't justify the theme. The whole reason why I support the deletion of this article - and the deletion of the pizza delivery article, while I'm here - is the lack of credible, coherent, and proven notability of topics which, elsewhere outside Wikipedia, would be considered trivial. You may call me a deletionist and I won't be offended, but if I were to look at this article and its random Google-hit citations, I see a random collection of tenuous links; not an article. Can it be fixed or saved? By deletion yes, for then a list of observations and tenuous mentions in the middle of sentences can be removed for the greater good. I fully accept you are passionate about this article, for whatever reasons, but I cannot accept, despite your rapid response to every valid delete suggestion, that this article should remain. doktorb _words^deeds 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we can agree to disagree, because I am far more persuaded by the various valid reasons presented throughout this discussion that the article should be kept, but improved. As I have said as well, I am not opposed to using what we can to merge and redirect without deletion and without prejudice to unredirecting as additional sourcing is done. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Picturesofcats.biz allows submissions by anyone, and so is not reliable. Even so, the source only states one person's opinion of what the Cheshire Cat represents, and could just be speculating on what Lewis Carroll intended by it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They show at least that it is unoriginal research as others have made that connection beyond Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming arguendo that this is true, they do not demonstrate that there are reliable sources that are substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." The first link has been dealt with already. The second includes exactly one sentence (the sentence you quoted) and the rest is again about what may or may not have inspired Carroll. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to Cheshire Cat (or if there is an overall article for "Alice in Wonderland" in Popular Culture, then there). At WP:VG (yes, not related but getting to that point) our "in popular culture" basically states that in discussion of a work that mentions the game, that if you cannot avoid mentioning the video game, it is considered appropriate to add. I'd use exactly the same way to swath here - about 1/3rd of these are worthwhile and sourced and more than just passing mention, and thus appropriate for inclusion somewhere in WP. However, when you cut it down to 1/3rd of this size, you can get a good 2-3 paragraph discussion that can easily fit into one of the articles above. For example, about 1/4th of the list (different from the "keep" 1/3rd) are simply use of the name as a literary allusion in other works or lyrics - either someone with a notable smile, or who disappears/reappears seemingly at will. All those can be reduced to one or two sentences. Others are just truly passing trivia and just need to be dropped. --MASEM 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid subtopic of both Cheshire Cat and Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. Books such as Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture and Lewis Carroll in the popular culture, a continuing list show that there is extensive coverage of Lewis Carroll's works and characters in the popular culture. And if you can't find reliable sources among the over 7 thousand published books that come up at Amazon when searching for "Cheshire Cat", then you're not looking hard enough. That's at least prima facie evidence of this character's obvious and notable influence on popular culture. DHowell (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been noted at least twice, the accessible references in the "Alice's Adventures" book deal with possible inspirations to Carroll in creating the Cheshire Cat. They are not about what if any influence the cat has had on popular culture. "Lewis Carroll in the popular culture" has no content available through your link, so it can't be considered a reliable source for the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as we have no way of knowing what the book says about the Cheshire Cat or indeed if the CC is mentioned at all. As for how many books include the phrase "Cheshire Cat" on Amazon, that is simply a variation on the Google test. Ham salad sandwich gets 364 hits on Amazon. Are you suggesting we should have Ham salad sandwiches in popular culture (please god, let that be a redlink). Oxygen gets 146,000+ Amazon hits. Air in popular culture? Otto4711 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air? Try Tropical cyclones in popular culture... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which at least has a source that details the topic, unlike this article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm guessing you only read the first few mentions of "Cheshire Cat" and generalized to the entire book. Not suprisingly, 4 of the first 5 mentions are exactly as you say, because they are a part of a chapter which analyzes the Alice works themselves. The first mention on page 51 is about a reference in a piece of pedophilic erotic fiction, clearly not about what inspired Lewis Carroll, but arguably not about "popular" culture, either. However after these few mentions we get to more relevant information. Pages 118, 126, and 137 talk about various illustrators' portrayals of the Cheshire Cat. Page 153 is about Jervis Tetch, the Mad Hatter villain from the Batman comics, who dresses up kidnapped children as Alice characters, including the Cheshire Cat, and this directly references one of the items already in the article; I've added the reference. Page 207 makes brief mention of Disney's portrayal of the Cheshire Cat, though I'm sure a a more substantial source could be found for that information. Pages 213 and 226 are about the 1985 film adaptation. Page 354 is part of a table which compares various films' scenes, and this page details when the Cheshire Cat first appears in each film. So there's plenty of support in just this book for the concept of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and this is just one book that we found simply because it happens to have the words "Popular Culture" in the title, and that's not including the content that Google Books isn't letting us look at.
Second, just because a source is not available online does not make it an unreliable source. Go to a library if you want to find content of a book that is not available online. We don't reject sources simply because they can't be accessed instantly. But pure common sense would indicate that a book which puports to "...document any item of Carolliana, regardless of its date and no matter how minor or oblique..." would likely contain some mention of the Cheshire Cat. Come to think of it, that description pretty much sounds exactly like something you would assert to be an "indiscriminate collection of trivia", but for some reason a few people who publish books like to use it as a reference. I guess such "trivia collections" aren't so useless after all.
Third, "Ham salad sandwich" and "oxygen" are everyday objects, not fictional characters invented in the 19th century, so one would not expect books containing those phrases to be popular culture works inspired by those subjects. On the other hand, a book containing the phrase "Cheshire Cat" is likely either talking about Lewis Caroll's character, or is inspired by it, and it reasonable to presume that at least some percentange of those 7 thousand hits are popular works containing material inspired by the Cheshire Cat, and some percentage of those may even be works analysing popular works inspired by the Cheshire Cat, which would contribute directly to this article. Of course given that you hadn't even looked beyond 5 of 20 hits in a single book, I don't expect you to look through every reference in over 7000 books. Hopefully the closing admin will recognize the potential here and realize that a mere lack of effort to substatiate an article is not a good reason to delete. DHowell (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously there is a lot to say about the cat being referenced in popular culture, and that warrants a separate article. Everyking (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet nothing is actually said, other than "I saw it! I saw it!" --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? A lot to say you say? Why don't you give us all an explanation on what it says. Also, trivia does not ever warrent its own article.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another unconnected dump of trivia and "I saw it on TV!" sightings, held together by bullet points as opposed to actual prose explaining anything. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic compendia of trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:UNENCYC and [6]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VAGUEWAVE is awesome because the proper response to a comment that consists only of "WP:VAGUEWAVE" is indeed the same comment, so: WP:VAGUEWAVE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that is indeed ironic! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
;-). Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If there are any useful secondary sources explaining the cultural impact of the Cheshire Cat, they should be incorporated at the primary article, where there is more than enough room. The majority of the popular culture article is primarily a collection of oblique references that need to be purged (which should be absolutely done whether the article is kept, merged, and deleted). These trivial mentions do not establish any explicit real-world context about the cultural impact of the Chesire Cat, and we should not pretend that putting down every indiscriminate instance is significant to understanding the primary topic in our reference-saturated society. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De montagne

At best a Non-notable film. No google hits for a film of this name with the same director. At worst a hoax, given the user that created the article has now got four other articles at afd for similar reasons (see here, here and below) ascidian | talk-to-me 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Advertchaser (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It's yet another hoax. Channel ® 13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. The claimed page on IMDB does not exist. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep Notability requirements per C1 of WP:Music have been met. As suggested, article still needs some cleaning up. Non Admin Close by Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Gynéco

Weak academic interest. Changes requested have not been made since 2006. Advertchaser (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable rapper. There are many problems with the article (eg. using YouTube videos as sources) but notability is not among them; he has won the Victoires de la Musique, and released 5 albums on a major record label (Virgin records). — Icewedge (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is not the only issue but quality of the article. Looks like advertisement by a professional biographer Advertchaser (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C1. This of course doesn't mean the article doesn't need a good tidy up. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article indicates notability, and there appear to be plenty of sources about him, although most are in French and/or available only for a price. [7] The article needs to be improved, but that certainly can be done. I made some edits to this article a couple of days ago although I only had English-language sources to use. A French-speaking editor would be able to do much more. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulo Makele

At best a Non-notable Actress, but could be a WP:Hoax article as it was created by the same user that created three other articles that are also at AFD as possible hoaxes. No google hits other than a mirror. ascidian | talk-to-me 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Ascidian 62.235.212.8 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's yet another hoax by our 'friend' user talk:Rasbasht. Channel ® 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as hoax. Didn't play Jessie Vandy in Blood Diamond: Jassie Vandy was played by Benu Mabhena. Similar with Princess - Princess was played by Benu Mabhena. The other film in IMDB is The Dutchess, were Rasbasht has inserted her as Lady Harriet, replacing Kate Burdette. All info checked against IMDB. Silverfish (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious hoax. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 13:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - not notable: no independent sources could be found; the only new sources cited were business networking type sites and Ghits [8], which just verifies his existence and marketing savvy. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Vansnick

Self bio by editor User:Ruudisoc, which could not be improved to required Wiki standard through use of sufficient independent sources. Most sources I can find relate to either self-created websites or social networking media Trident13 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable individual. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or proof of notability. Editor Ruudisoc's only edits are on this topic Artene50 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information here and here. I'm not normally a "keep" person for iffy articles, but this is anything but; it asserts notability, with the WSA's being an important set of awards and their site confirming that the person in question was on the Grand Jury, and about 155,000 ghits for him. His only contribution yes, but that doesn't undermine the reliability of the page, only the reliability of him as an editor. Ironholds 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Social networks bio pages - which are self-written - are not considered WP:SOURCE due to their non-compliant WP:NPOV positions. The two direct sources you quote are Social Network self bio's - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I probably should have read the pages slightly more. However, the ghits and presidency of the belgian internet society chapter are grounds for notability and I have also found an example of independent media coverage here (which I did check to make sure it's not some myspace equivalent :P. Ironholds 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have a look at WP:BIO. Ghits are not a valid basis on which to make a notability decision - the person has got to have done something valid as there defined to make them notable. If you check the Ghits listings, then your single reference is (probably) valid but way back in the Ghits listing, and its only one source. Which is why I said in the nomination could not be improved to required Wiki standard through use of sufficient independent sources. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, we have a position at the head of a national Internet Society chapter, independent media coverage and a member of the jury for a significant set of awards. I maintain this is enough for a keep regardless of the creators intent. Ironho lds 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - The outcome looks obvious. --JForget 23:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greensborough Plaza

AfDs for this article:

Non notable shopping centre. Not paticuarly large (trust me - I live in that general area), not out of the ordinary - nothing that sets it apart from the hundreds of medium sized shopping centres around the country. Article is well referenced, but that doesn't establish notability. Some minor media mentions - but mainly as a result of a Myer branch being withdrawn (and therefore incidental non significant coverage in niche websites). The only two mentions in a major media outlet (in this case The Australian) and both focus on the parent company's financials not the plaza itself. The other mentions are primaily from a niche website that would probobly not be notable itself. They certainly do nothing to establish the notability of the plaza. Many of the reference links do not actually go to the articles they reference. Viridae ^Talk 12:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is well-referenced, contains decent claims to notability, and has already survived a deletion attempt twice, for gods sake. "If you fail to delete the first time, keep trying until you succeed" is not a helpful way of behaving on Wikipedia. Rebecca (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second deletion attempt. The first being close to a year ago. Bad faith accusations of repeatedly nominating until it is deleted do not help your argument. I didnt even know the article existed until about half an hour ago. The number of references =/= notability - only two of those refs are from a major media outlet (in this case The Australian) and both focus on the parent company's financials not the plaza itself. This plaza is simply not notable. Viridae^Talk 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more than enough, and the place certainly hasn't become less notable since there was a snowball keep, dear god. Rebecca (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Building does not seem to have any historic or architectural significance. --Thetrick (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced article, claims to notability. JIP | Talk 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous references assert notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. As mentioned in the nom, most of them are from a niche website with little to no notability itself. Most of the references do not focus on the plaza itself but mention it as the place OTHER businesses are doing things (ie insignificant coverage). The only mentions in mainstream media are related to the parent company. Viridae ^Talk 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be non-notable shopping arcade doktorb _words^deeds 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough secondary coverage of this subject to warrant inclusion and to support all the content.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please look at these references and show me the non trivial mentions? Cos I ain't seeing any. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost all, if not all the references are "non-trivial" by Wikipedia standards, ie they're not "directory listings or store hours." --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They only mention the centre in passing as part of coverage of stores within. Viridae^Talk 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to have changed the subject from "trivial coverage" to "passing mentions". There seems to be a lot more than "passing mentions" in most of the references, included the Inside Retailing the Herald pieces. Contrary to your stipulation, an article topic does not have to be the "main subject" of secondary sources, but just that the subject is covered by sources enough to write a sourced article.--Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are talking about sourcing. The sourcing is clearly good. Notability is however lacking. Viridae ^Talk 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the sourcing shows that the notability is easily there; the content of the sources easily makes out the centre's notability. Quit being querulous. Rebecca (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry but what? Most of the coverage is incidental and from a minor niche website. The only coverage from a sigificant media source focuses on the parent company, of which the plaza is just one asset. Where is the coverage significant enough to indicate this is a notable shopping centre. Viridae ^Talk 04:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is plenty of good coverage about the goings-on at the centre itself as far as the majority of people here are concerned. It was enough for a snowball keep last time it was nominated, which should be a pretty bloody obvious sign. You don't agree; we get that. Please quit trying to argue every single person who disagrees with you into submission. Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you please be more civil. Bad faith accusations do not help the process. I do not believe that the sources are actually being looked at properly by those voting keep. I also don't believe that simply counting the neumber of references is any guide to wether this is worthy of coverage. The quality of coverage must be taken into account - and in this case it is all minor mentions. Consensus can change (it certainly seems possible here) so repeatedly referring to the snowball a year ago is unhelpful. Viridae ^Talk 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject serves a large geographical area, article asserts notability, notability is proven by references in reliable secondary sources, and the arguments for deletion add up to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus can change but it clearly appears that it has not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep _- I am not sure why the nominator dismisses sources other than the Australian - as being reliable - they are published , I assume by a reliable publication process and I see no reason to doubt that their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I note that I cannot find any of the Inside retailing articles online but I assume they were correctly cited - I think this is not a challenge to the sources. I think the Myer controversy is in fact part of a major shift in retailing in Australia (and probably elsewhere). It could be a feasible option that the coverage already in the article on Greensborough, Victoria could be expanded slightly and that would be sufficient and the Myer controversy form part of a larger article on the trends of landlord/small retailer relationships and Myer downmarketing to Target (is downmarketing a word? probably not but ... ) I can't actually see it is really a notable place per Wikipedia:Notability - substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability - but the article is probably large enough to justify being broken out from the locality article. --Matilda ^talk 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view clearly notable and well-referenced. Murtoa (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best-written and referenced shopping centre articles I've seen. If the nominator considers the references unreliable or trivial, then I beg to differ. Declaring a subject non-notable in spite of multiple references seems to be a subjective application of notability somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's primary notability criterion. --Canley (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced, cited, and well written article. I thought we had policies like WP:N to stop things like this from going to AfD. Five Years 05:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced article - cites both mainstream and trade publication coverage. Were someone to have the time and Factiva access I'm sure it could be improved even further. Orderinchaos 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, well set out. This is the standard of article we keep here. Should never have made it to AfD. Survives WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SNOW. JRG (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morgan (footballer)

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer - hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but it's not as clear as you might think - Halifax Town played in League Two until 2002 but this guy didn't make his league debut for them until later that year (when they were already relegated to the Conference National). ugen64 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear fail of WP:Athlete. Vickser (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible (song)

Lack of notability, lack of information. Author created page saying it was released as a single, but it wasn't, and therefore, with the perpetual lack of information, is not noteworthy. If anybody objects, please give your opinion. dude527 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Billboard confirms a chart position of the song on the Billboard Hot 100. Mind you a song doesn't have to be released as a single to chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it must be released as a single to chart, I'm saying this is not a single and very few songs on Wikipedia have articles unless they are singles. This song is not very notable. Just because it charted does not mean it's noteworthy, as it has only one line of information, and most of that information is already found at Indestructible's page. dude527 (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change my decision to Delete. A chart appearance by a non-single doesn't make it notable especially that didn't last awful long. The only info that can really be saved, the chart posisition, is already in Disturbed discography. I would say redirect to Indestructible (album) but Indestructible (song) is an unlikely search term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Egan

No evidence that any of the clubs Egan played for played at a high enough level to confer notability, and the clubs he's managed certainly don't. – Pee Jay 11:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Number57. Giant Snowman 00:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Dancarney (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Burgess

Very bias article, without correct formatting, links or relevance whatsoever. Most likely written by the subject of the article herself. ZEROpumpkins (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Hi-5, lacks WP:RS, no notability outside Hi-5, although bigger things are around the corner. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Hi-5. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hi-5 Mardetanha ^talk 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup: Hi-5 are a highly notable band here in Oz, somewhat like the Wiggles. Several members past and present have been involved with projects outside of Hi-5 too. Remember that article quality is no reason to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:MUSIC - I don't see where she's notable independent of Hi-5, unless that show she did in Grade 9 was a bigger deal than the article makes it appear. Townlake (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this going to be a merge and redirect, or is it going to be a delete and redirect? (Note, however, you can't do merge and delete.) Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given the current content of the article, I'd go for delete and redirect. Townlake (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge of info then delete of the redirect is possible, no? Anyway Delete and Redirect to Hi-5.Yobmod (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - membership in Hi-5 is sufficient claim to notability --T-rex 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilian Elkinson

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league. Has already been deleted once (via prod) for same reason, but this time prod was removed with the argument "plays in reserve games - which consists entirely of professionals". However, past consensus is that reserve and academy matches do not count towards professional appearences. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, a thousand times delete – Pee Jay 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as I know this "criteria" hasn't been applied to the Tier 1 MLS before. MLS reserve games are fully professional. It's a professional league with professional players. Criteria met. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask what the link was meant to prove? There is nothing there saying that the MLS reserve league is fully pro. Also, why is there a difference between the MLS reserve league and the Premier League reserve league? If the latter does not confer notability onto players, the former definitely shouldn't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the link you can quickly see from the schedules and player lists, that everyone is professional. I confess I'm not familiar enough with the Premiere League's reserve division to comment on it. The criteria for notability is that "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league" and clearly this has been met; there's no exception listed in WP:ATHLETE for fully professional reserve leagues. Nfitz (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you expand on how it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE - as it seems pretty clear to me that it does meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mardetanha ^talk 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second team games don't count. If this gets allowed the floodgates are open. Wait till he makes his proper debut. Nick mallory (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a difference between most reserve leagues in the world and the MLS reserve league. In countries like England and Scotland, the reserve league consists of many professional players, yes, but each team also plays youth players who have no professional contract, and thus we can rightly exclude them from being considered as "fully professional leagues". However, there is no such thing as a "non-professional" player in the MLS, just like there is no such thing as a "non-professional" player in Major League Baseball, the NFL, NBA, NHL, WNBA, or any comparable league. Every single player on any roster of any MLS team has a professional contract, and since the MLS reserve league consists of only MLS teams (as anyone who can comprehend English could figure out), it must therefore be, by definition, a "fully professional league". ugen64 (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no first team experience. Wait until he's made his first team debut. Bettia (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reserve teams are not first teams; recreate once/if he makes his first team debut. --Angelo (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic baptism

Unreferenced, unverified article, violates WP:NPOV Closedmouth (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external links in the article are all to locations that offer personal web hosting, and their content does not seem to verify the article. This search turns up more websites on personal hosting services, tangential mentions of the term that don't seem to involve the practice in question, blogs and some first party sources by supposedly satanic organizations — schismatic groups derived from the Church of Satan and its practices. The lack of neutrality is well exemplified by the scare quotes around "original sin." deranged bulbasaur 10:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Unschool (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research if it can't be sourced, otherwise merge to satanism. JIP | Talk 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a quick glance at various possible sources, I don't see the solid references that are needed for a good article, and it's pretty clearly non-notable as well. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Mardetanha ^talk 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands violated several policies and guidelines. Article could be recreated if reliable, verifiable sources regarding the subject could be found and added. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Sciarra

No source for the article and nobility is in doubt Mardetanha ^talk 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This search turns up some possible sources, including a mention in the poetry of Richard Wilbur, provided that the same villa is meant. deranged bulbasaur 09:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deranged bulbasaur vote. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Villa Sciarra most prominent in Bulbasaur's search, which is in Rome, is a different place from the one treated in this article, which was (it apparently no longer exists; see http://www.lnf.infn.it/conference/nn2002/villasciarra.html here]) in Frascati. The Wilbur poem is about the one in Rome. Deor (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don’t see that its current state of repair (or existence!) need detain us: we’re not writing a tourist guide. If it was notable, then it deserves a place in the encyclopedia. Deor’s useful link shows that it did have important inhabitants: Federico Borromeo should make up for the loss of Richard Wilbur. And the article points to a gate by Nicola Salvi. (Our article on him is very short compared to it:Nicola Salvi.) Probably not the most interesting villa in Italy, but I’m convinced that the article could be improved and could be useful to a few serious readers. That’s enough for me.—Ian Spackman (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears in the Archivio dei giardini e parchi storici, of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturale (Roughly, the Italian Ministry for cultural patrimony and activities.)—Ian Spackman (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a well preserved historic villa. Even poet Richard Wilbur wrote in detail of it.[9] --Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter bun

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Combine [your choice of filling] with [bun] or [sandwich] and this is what you get. Nothing particularly notable about thie either - it's a Hong Kong adaption of a western 'sandwich', and the article is entirely unsourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a page on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich and salad dressing sandwich. This is a complete violation of DISCRIMINATION of culture. Not tolerable on wikipedia. Benjwong (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it's weak, but Benjwong's point has a small amount of validity to it. Looking around online, I found sufficient blog references to indicate that its cultural weight is probably beyond what the average westerner can appreciate. Unfortunately, these blog don't really meet WP:RS, but maybe if Benjwong, who was a primary contributor to the article, can come up with something for us by way of citations, then it can stay. Unschool (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect All the various Chinese "bun" articles into Chinese bakery and redirect the current pages there. I'm ignoring all the rules here (wp:n and the like) because if I read somewhere about a "peanut butter bun" I'd like wikipedia to tell me what it is, just like someone else might like to know what a fluffernutter is. Yes, it doesn't have a lot of coverage but here are some references about this food item that could be incorporated in the article: from a book, a review, review from blog. Yes I know, not reliable 3 party sources. And yes only a few ghits depending on search terms. These don't need a page of their own at present and if they grow large enough to warrant an article of their own that can be done later. Faradayplank (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are more than 1000 google page hits. The search should have been done in the chinese characters. Very few food items actually have undisputed english names. "Peanut butter bun" can be considered a transliterated name. Benjwong (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am seeing a pattern that the proposing editor is targeting cuisine items from Chinese cuisine, always without properly making his/her case for deletion, and usually for items that are clearly discrete, specific items of cuisine that the Chinese cuisine project is aiming to describe in our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you appear to be suggesting I'm engaging in bad faith nominations. Therefore, as a gentle reminder: please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the reasonable points that have been brought up in its defense, wikipedia cannot have an article about everything, that being why we have WP:N and WP:V. There needs to be some kind of reliable source that we can point to so that it's clear that this is at least a fairly notable food dish. I don't particularly see why we need to have an article about a peanut butter filled pastry if it's not well known. Boccobrock•T 21:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok the thing that hurts most chinese food articles is that there is never any web sources. Seriously I got stuff so rare it will generate zero hits on google. I am already backing off from adding those to wiki. What we are putting up here is already pretty obvious. Ask people who go to bakery shops regularly. This one is almost always on the shelf. Benjwong (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it may exist in many a Chinese bakery or cha chaan teng, but so does the ham and egg sandwich or the lemon tea. If I were to cite something to benchmark any bakery item against, it would be Yuanyang, Egg tart or pineapple bun. I'm sorry, but I feel this one doesn't even come close - I'd be doing it a favour referring to this even as a 'variant'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All this benchmarking is culture driven. Is like flagging Fortune cookies for deletion cause it has little to no notability anywhere in the far east. Maybe someone needs to research how peanut butter, a very American ingredient gets used in such a popular pastry on the other side of the planet. Is not everyday that western ingredients are utilized. Look at cheese for example. It still hasn't really caught on. This is why I said if you have no interest in food, please do not get involved. Benjwong (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, the comparison is even not true and an exaggeration from your lack of knowledge of the regional info and culture. The Far East includes Taiwan, Japan, South Korean, and Mongol but due to hollywood movies and tv series, fortune cookie is familiar to at least South Korean and Japanese.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Chinese bakery as there appears to be no way to substantially expand this stub but merging it (and other, similar stubs) to Chinese bakery could turn that into a first-class article. The subject would be covered well, as the author intends, and the project would be better served in several significant ways. This isn't about culture, this is about the encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This bun is widely sold in South Korea and Japan, or any Asian markets in some of English speaking world, so I doubt it is an indigenous food to Hong Kong. If it is kept, the article should not mislead information on the bread. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless there's evidence of something being not in good faith here, I say keep it. Articles about specific things that are a litte out of the ordinary are great topic.s --Firefly322 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw In response to Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV)'s suggestion in another AfD, and as a gesture of goodwill, I would withdraw this nomination. I would ask the creator and other staunch defender(s) of the article to please fix the problems of the article, instead of indulging in character assassination to defend the article. Looking back, I guess I could have been more communicative. I really object to being portrayed as the bogeyman and philistine in this. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Ogle

Non-notable college soccer player, fails WP:BIO. No professional games, no caps. Probable WP:COI, as the creator is User:Liamogle1986 RGTraynor 08:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:Masterpiece2000. Unschool (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Of Chucky

Purported next sequel to the Child's Play movies; however, this is so far just a rumor kicking around, there isn't even a pre-production entry on IMDB either under this name or any other, and so this fails WP:NFF in addition to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. RGTraynor 07:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I did find a movie poster and a forum post (and several sites referring to Wikipedia itself), I haven't found any reliable sources. Appears to me to be a rumor at this point. --Pixelface (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. According to IMDb, the film is only announced (Child's Play (2009)). It is an apparent remake and its casting is rumored. This film is also in Wikipedia as Child's Play (Remake) (disputed PROD). • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if imdb isn't publishing this rumor then no one is --T-rex 18:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news from them movie Mardetanha ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually none of the films in the series have their own articles. If there were anything verifiable here, it could be merged to Chucky (Child's Play). But there's not, so delete. Шизомби (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Bigvinu (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not appear on The Internet Movie Database or Yahoo! Movies. I did what I could to improve the grammar and format, but unfortunately (yes, I would see the movie if it were made...), I could not find any reliable sources to add. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept — Werdna • talk 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osnat Tzadok

Non-notable artist who flogs her work on eBay; that being said, only 131 G-hits [10], which turn up zero on reliable sources. Meets no element for creative professionals under WP:BIO. RGTraynor 07:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep. While this video clip is apparently hosted by the artist on YouTube, it appears to be an intact copy of a CBC news broadcast. Havard Gould, the correspondent, is a reporter at the national level with CBC, based on the Google research I did. I'm going to say that interview/news story is "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"—which fulfills the basic criteria of WP:BIO. At this point, the article needs improvement, not scrapping. —C.Fred (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) recommendation amended 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am new to Wikipedia and I believe that it is obvious that this artist is noteworthy. I understand that some folks in the art world do not have an objective opinion about artists who are successful representing themselves on eBay. This is a notable artist. CBS notes this artist. Jerusalem Post notes this artist. eBay notes this artist. Canada Newswire notes this artist. The fact that the artists sells over $30,000 a month on eBay is notable in itself. This artist won the 2007 eBay Canadian Entrepreneur of the year award in 2007. Is this not a noteworthy artist? Perhaps newly noteworthy however I do not think it can be denied. -- I live on Planet Art (talk 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note that I live on Planet Art (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the original editor of the article, and most/all of this user's edits to date have focused on the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how much of that is verifiable? So far, all I can verify is that she won third place in the 2007 eBay Canadian Entrepreneur of the Year Awards. A Google search found nothing from CBS, Jerusalem Post, or Canada Newswire; it also found nothing directly from CBC, though it did turn a clip via YouTube. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fred, I want to focus on this very first article before I create my next article as I am still learning. You can verify these sources in the inline links and also the reference links. I live on Planet Art (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:BIO. Yes, she's a working artist, but she's not notable for an encyclopedia. The sources that are provided are not really about her as an artist per se, but more about her selling through ebay. The Jerusalem Post article is about wine and mentions her as an illustrator. For Wikipedia, we require mainly academic sources and popular press sources that are beyond the trivial. This has not been demonstrated. freshacconcispeaktome 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the artist sells so much artwork on eBay is in of itself worthy of being in an encyclopedia. The noted CBS interview, the paintings on wine labels, the Fox TV show hanging the work add more notability. In doing more research I just discovered the artist's work is on an educational book published by Thomson-Nelson. Thank you for posting this discussion on Visual Artists, Freshacconci, I need help here. I agree with —C.Fred that this article should be improved. I do wonder though how much time I have to improve it?--- I live on Planet Art (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions usually last 5 days. An administrator then decides to keep, delete or no consensus (which defaults as keep). freshacconcispeaktome 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that info, Freshacconci. I live on Planet Art (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only hope of notability is as an e-bay phenomenon, but she doesn't make it imho. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article revisions. I have done a complete rewrite of the article. I do agree that her chief claim to notability are her eBay sales and award, however. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred I think that's a wonderful rewrite. I need to learn how to make those "marks" in the reference areas. I will maintain my standing on this issue and await more input from others. I appreciate everyone (for or against deletion) for adding to this discussion. I live on Planet Art (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article revisions. I added on minor addition - a reference to the Thomas Nelson Publication book that uses this artist's work on their cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C. Fred there looks to be ample sources in line with WP:BIO criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, upon actually reading those sources, they don't comply. WP:BIO holds "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It specifically enjoins against "trivial" mentions, and the only one of those sources which more than mentions her name ("Tzadok was the third place winner") is a couple paragraphs in the Toronto Star piece. Those paragraphs, in fact, quote her about her husband. RGTraynor 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources still remain. Please refer to all of the sources.I live on Planet Art (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the sources are trivial, they do not count toward the "significant coverage" hurdle. In that respect, more sources are needed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. While the pile-on of trivial sources strike me as little more than "OMG, we need to find anything on the Web that has her name on it!" and add nothing to the article, I can't see a point in removing them. Either other, reliable sources will be found in time to save the article, or it'll be a moot point. RGTraynor 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RG your information regarding Google is not correct. The results produce 2110 references, not 131 as you stated above.[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 11 Supernovas

minor trivia from a universe that is already notability tagged. Fails WP:Fict and WP:N at the very least. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 07:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-universe gibberish. Characters are better covered elsewhere in WP. Notability not explained or referenced. --Thetrick (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above - everything has been said.Yobmod (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Set

Non-notable band; fails to meet any of the elements of WP:BAND. One year old, no reliable sources showing up in the article or on Google, band has yet to release any albums, no sign of having toured. RGTraynor 07:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. tomasz. 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are on page (TMG website). They are currently touring which could be discovered if you follow the link on the page to the record label site. The label itself is notable, being the label of Cartel (band) 68.194.221.50 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Websites, especially those not independent of the sources, are not generally considered reliable per WP:RS. Whether the record label is notable or not is irrelevant; notability is not contagious. The touring criterion doesn't involve playing a number of dates; it is "[having] received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." If Rolling Stone, say, writes an article about this band's tour, that meets the criteria. RGTraynor 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom says, notability is conferred by multiple independant RS - without them, this is non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Living Products

Article contains no assertion of notability. Appears very much like advertising. MidgleyDJ (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not the greatest fan of MLM or FLP, but there are more than enough sources for FLP to claim notability under WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Better summarised presently as a poor article with lots of AdverText which needs improvement and referencing; than an article which needs deletion. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and improve the article so it doesn't read like an advert. --Dumbo12 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change to keep as well provided notability can be established in the article and the advertspeak is removed. MidgleyDJ (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gusainji

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed here, although I'm not familiar enough with Hindu historiography to know whether he was a god or an historical figure or both. WillOakland (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing this reference. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not completely familiar with the subject as well. I was unable to find sources for which Gusaninji was the subject of any scholarly study. I will continue to look for sources also as the subject might be notable if/when sources are provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name Gusainji had few matches, and in the draft of the article I read, Gusainji was mentioned as the son of Mahaprabhu, who I mistook to be a name for Caitanya. I apologise for this oversight. As WillOakland has pointed out above, a search for Vithalnath reveals a lot of sources via a google books search; Krishna: A Sourcebook, By Edwin F. Bryant, Devotional Literature in South Asia: Current Research, 1985-1988, Singing Krishna: Sound Becomes Sight in Paramanand's Poetry, By A. Whitney Sanford, Bhakti Studies, By Greg M. Bailey, Ian Kesarcodi-Watson, and The Poetics of Devotion: The Gujarati Lyrics of Dayaram, By Rachel Dwyer. The subject is mentioned in these references as the son and successor of Vallabhacharya. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the point the article might only need a renaming and rewritting. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Article mixes assumes religion to be historical facts. --Bigvinu (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though as of now is a POV, a glorification; it is about notable Vallabha Sampradaya person. A rewrite is needed.Redtigerxyz (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redtigerxyz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin Nominator chaged vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no delete votes, also improvements made.--JForget 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Willis

COI, non notable, pov issues Metagraph comment 06:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He reached number one on the U.S. dance chart on the single "Love Is Gone". I'm having trouble finding significant individual coverage in English but there are tons of sources in French. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that, however the song is apparently by David Guetta and his page im guessing was only created due to this. Metagraph comment 12:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The improvements and addition of multiple media mentions by Paul Erik does it for me. ~ Eóin (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is a fair amount of media coverage (also with the search terms "Chris Willis" and "gospel"), though it does appear that much of it is coverage primarily of David Guetta. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It turns out that Willis had many non-trivial mentions in the media in the 1990s during his career as a gospel singer. I've added several references. There is also one that I did not add because I do not have access to the full text of it, but it looks promising: Sturdivant, Kevin D. "Singer Chris Willis mixes it up", The Tennessean, 1997-08-15, p. F1. Anyway, there's enough sourcing in the article even as it stands now, for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – just the 6 singles he is featured in with David Guetta is enough notability.. and he meats the criteria for musicians in more then one way. Bambinn (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Symonds

I declined a speedy tag because I'm an adherent to strict interpretations of CSD criteria. However, after a google search and the subsequent addition of Getting the MBA Admissions Edge - which I nominated for Afd here - things started looking a bit like G11 and I thought this should go to AfD, too. Notability is claimed but hard to judge. I think it falls on the non-notable side of the fence. Tan | 39 06:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion by him or his company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to delete both semi-notable and non-notable BLPs. In doing so, I am considering a number of general policy arguments that do not relate to this article specifically:
1. some article subjects might ask to be deleted, and in such cases there is a significant privacy interest in deleting them;
2. some Wikipedians do not consider the wishes of the article subject to be relevant per currently-existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines;
3. one possible way to reconcile these two points of view is to delete all BLPs that are marginally notable, regardless of the wishes of the article's subject. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the MBA Admissions Edge

Well, I declined a speedy tag on Matt Symonds - the article of this book - as it appears he might meet notability and I wanted it to at least go to AfD. However, things are getting borderline G11 here with this addition. This book nowhere near meets our notability guidelines for books. Tan | 39 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of third-party sources. Also, I might ask myself, would I expect to see an article by this title in a paper encyclopædia? If reliable third-party sources can be found, I would suggest merging this into a list of books about business-school admissions or something like that. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is borderline speedy. Makes no notabability claims let alone establishment of notability. Also meets none of the 5 WP:BK criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a book

WP:NOTHOWTO guide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Coalition of California

Non-notable. No reliable, verifiable refs. Also has no website. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. WillOakland (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting, WillOakland. Advertchaser (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't found out anything about them, except some stuff on Indymedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goh Lee Kwang

Procedural nomination. This was nominated for speedy under CSD A7. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably along with the five or so album pages also created. Passes WP:MUSIC only by virtue of scant media coverage. On the balance, I think this needs to go, at least until he is signed to a real label. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article can be recreated if he ever gets further than self publishing his stuff. Agree that the albums should go as well. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Leonard^(Bloom) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing

This seems to be unreferenced WP:OR, needs review by knowledgeable editors ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not OR in the slightest. Each of the three things being compared here are well defined and referenced in their own right. A derivative page of this nature can essentially inherit the sources from the three articles under comparison. While the 'pros and cons of openMP' are somewhat suspect as potential technological POV, none of this merits deletion of this article. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will edit to improve Thank you for both of your comments. However, I think the page deserves its existence. As said by HatlessAtlas, the article comes from existing web pages on three topics. What I plan to do is summarizing what's existing and rewrite them in a more readable fashion as a comparison. I've seen quite many articles of comparisons, including Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of instant messaging clients, Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units, Comparison of virtual machines, and many others of this type. I agree that the article needs more work, both the content and the wording, and I'd like to keep editing to improve the page. Please let me know if you have other suggestion. Thanks. ALife (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)ALife[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comparisons of this sort seem too much of a how-to and lead to improper synthesis. If accepted, the format would open the door to comparisons of products which are often found in consumer magazines (Mac vs PC); comparisons of celebrities (Jolie vs Alba); fictional characters (Obi Wan vs Gandalf) and so on. We have enough articles already without linking them together in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Comparisons between similar technologies are not how-tos in any way. 212.183.240.205 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about renaming it to something that doesn't seem like a how-to? "Programming protocols for parallel computers"? "Data-parallel algorithms"? A subject expert might be more able to think of a proper name, but the article ought to be renamed and improved. Seems ok to be kept though. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Protonk. "Comparison of..." can make it sound like a shopping guide and encourage people to post their opinions. But something more neutral can present the article as an overview of the general field where MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing are three of the main technologies. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss rewrite/rename. Very important rundown of parallel coding, parallelism is the only way we can extract more performance in the future and this is still an ongoing battle, what's the future? It's the elephant in the room, it needs a rundown and it doesn't have to turn into a fight. It can easily be neutral provided 'fanboys' of languages/methods get culled. --Joffeloff (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum Online

AfDs for this article:

Online game, only references seem to be the game's websites, a Spanish Wikipedia article (!) and some forum postings. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Here is a reliable source (IGN) with a thorough interview of the game: IGN Regnum Interview, Part 1. Also, MMORPG.com which is a known stop for MMORPG's has this game listed and updated, with several discussions about the game. Also, a quick Google search shows that this game didn't appear out of nowhere but has been around for quite some time. Granted, is not WOW or any of the big games but it still a game that has gained some reputation and it has shown a lot of potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.130.61 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep there are sources, but not listed. The lack of sources doesnt mean that there arent any. So, please google before nomitating. Possible sources could be for example MMOSITE or GamersHell --Drhlajos (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add reliable sources to the article. You seem to have listed two game fan-sites above, one of which is simply a reproduction of a press release from Regnum Online. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't mean, that they are not reliable, simply they are too lazy to write one, I think. --Drhlajos (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also got sum reviews, check, if they are reliable. [12], [13]. Well, personally, I think, if some artice got a "not notable! kill it with fire", thats the end if the page usually. But, I think, the notablity shoul NOT based on the reviews of professionals. The tons of fansites, blogs, and user reviews means that the game is played widely. For example: you can also VFD Supertux. For the same reason. Perhaps I should suggest changes in the notablity page? --Drhlajos (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see last nomination. If keeped then, then what is the point now?--Drhlajos (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the game is really well known inside the latin community and inside the linux community (maybe because it's one of the only MMORPG in 3D working well on Linux). The article may need a lot of work, but I'm against any deletion. PierreSelim (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the general notability guideline. This article has a few references, but many are self-published and cannot assert notability. Notability requires reliable sources as defined by guidelines. These sources must also be secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The keep votes do not appear to understand the guideline, although I assume in good faith that they just didn't know this guideline existed. Randomran (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is HappyPenguin a reliable source with permanant URL for you ? I mean it's not hard to find articles about this game in the Linux community. The game has also a page on the French Wikipedia, maybe this isn't good enought ? --PierreSelim (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Penguin is a site with a nice big "Submit a game" button on it. Obviously not a reliable source. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help you to review the policy on reliable sources. It's not really about what I think. Randomran (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looks like there's just enough out there to demonstrate notability. There's the IGN interview and User:Herostratus identified some media coverage in the previous AfD, though those sources don't appear to be available online anymore.--Kubigula (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as World of Warcraft, seems to be a comprehensive article, especially considering some of the other stuff on wikipedia. Will Thompson (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goat and Wolf

This seems to be a self-published piece of fiction that I can't find much information about via a web search. Rnb (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being published on deviantart is a big red flag here. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable manga. JIP | Talk 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick search fails to find any evidence that this self-published work meets the notability requirement for books ot the general notability guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fanwork. No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. (Duane543 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Self-published works can achieve notability but there is no evidence to suggest that this one has. As a result, I believe it is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marina Orlova

The result was speedy keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Wikipedias per consensus (non-admin closure. Finalnight (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quechua Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

This page was nominated (by myself) and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quechua_Wikipedia, however it was subsequently recreated. Speedy deletion nominations never stick on wikipedias, so let's save some time and send it back here for another go. The basic issues haven't changed, the only "source" is first party and does not remedy the problem of lack of sources mentioned in the first nomination. deranged bulbasaur 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias, which seems to be a common result when an article about a foreign language Wikipedia has no independent sources. The Quechua Wikipedia itself does not appear to be notable per WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The only thing here beyond bare statistics is the claim that "it has been criticized by many Quecha speakers", which isn't substantiated by any sources. A full article can wait until there's sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - With respect to WP:WEB. -Rushyo (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Even wikipedias are subject to notability and verifiability policies.Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No prejudice against recreation once reliable sources providing minor details such as the name of the album and its release date become available. --Allen3 ^talk 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kelis Album

Contested prod- This is not yet notable and also a WP:CRYSTAL problem. JBsupreme (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Thetrick (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No name, no article per TPH's Law. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USER HANDFULL sorry Kelis has a 5th album coming out and there are refrences!!! and proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handfulll (talk • contribs) 11:30, June 22, 2008
Comment, the issue here isn't that the album will eventually come out, I'm sure it will, the issue is what makes this album especially notable enough to warrant an article prior to its release date, per WP:CRYSTAL #3. So far none of the references in the article have established any sort of notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Marie Brueggeman

This article is nothing more that an attempt to collect potential leads for a cold murder case. While a worthy endeavor, it is non-encyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia Vgranucci (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship/Gallery

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World Chess Championship/Gallery

It is an article subpage and is unencyclopaedic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gak!! How do I get it to show as World Chess Championship/Gallery. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Maybe it should be a section of World Chess Championship rather than a subpage. Or a subpage of the chess Wikiproject. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of images of chess champions is unencyclopadic. Annotated lists are sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and for masquerading as a subpage even though subpages are not possible in mainspace. Deor (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chess players are notable for their achievments, not their looks. So an article just showing what they look like is unencylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banner (administrative division)

Unencyclopædic article that doesn't even define the term or verify that it is actually an administrative division. Tavix (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - ~~Article has almost no context, but the subject seems notable. Perhaps boldly redirect to Banner (Inner Mongolia)? -FrankTobia (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Looks good now thanks to Dravecky. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is the proposer doing? It is clearly a disambiguation page bringing readers to the various WP articles about the administrative division called "banner" in various cultures. Badagnani (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep subject is notable; article is merely a dicdef though. Maybe best as a dab page or a rd? JJL (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as this is a disambiguation page in need of reformatting, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have reworked and expanded the page a bit to make clearer both the historic and global usage of this term although it could, certainly, use further expansion. - Dravecky (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Dravecky. Very nice. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, as it reads now its fairly clear that it's a disambiguation page, and is a necessary disambig page at that. Boccobrock•T 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, Nice work: the disambiguation makes it look a whole lot nicer than it did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep, as FCC-licensed stations are generally notable. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KYMC

This is/was a silent radio station that doesn't seem to be very notable. Tavix (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as an FCC-licensed radio station with 30 years of broadcasting history. Notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Also, the station has received significant in-depth coverage in secondary reliable sources, including front page coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I have added a few of these references to the article. (And is "doesn't seem to be very notable" a valid criteria? (see WP:JNN)) - Dravecky (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Insufficient deletion rationale; also, all FCC licensed stations are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all FCC licensed stations are inherently notable, notability is not temporary. Plus this article has some good history in it.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's still a licensed station, which means at any time it could come back on the air or be sold and the new owners could bring it back. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If the FCC licensed it, it stays on Wikipedia. TV stations like KTFL (silent) and others get the same treatment, even if they're dead - like WKBF-TV, WKBS-TV, and many more. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Without A Cause Sessions

Completely unsourced. Not on Kid Rock's official page discography, not mentioned anywhere on the Kid Rock page itself, and I tried various Google searches - the article name, "Kid Rock demo", etc. Couldn't find a thing. Tan | 39 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable demo tape by a notable artist --T-rex 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax Artene50 (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Pwnage

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources, seems to be basically a vanity piece about an amateur tv program Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been the subject of multiple independent, reliable sources: ABC2 Australia - Good Game, The Escapist, as well as at least two AfDs resulting in keep. While it is indeed a series of amateur "webisodes", it does seem to be extraordinarily popular within the gaming community. --Canley (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - a viewer base of three million isn't non-notable. Also technically it is no an amateur tv program either, as it is neither produced by amateurs, nor on tv. --T-rex 02:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Canley (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is full of cruft, yes, and uses too many primary sources to verify its own content, and could therefore use cleanup with a chainsaw and blowtorch. However, it does demonstrate at least minimal notability, and has lots of attention on google, so I'd like to see a sincere effort in rewriting a proper article before contemplating deletion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article is indeed notable; it just needs general cleanup, particularly with verifiable references. MuZemike (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has passed two other deletion reviews. It has obviously established notability, what is the point of going through all this again?Snake6 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not in question. User:Krator (t c) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - Pure Pwnage is an enjoyable program and is one of the first made for internet only shows. It is more groundbreaking than people realize right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.170.99 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it has devote followers, millions of hits, its own subculture, episode's premiere in theatres with thousands of poeple watching, well know throughout the World. I see no real reason for deletion. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show has shown Ground breaking innovation for showing sides of the gamer community few people do not see.It has a good audience from around the world.The Program is no where amateur.Just because the show is made from a independent company doesn't mean it doesn't have creditability.The editing, acting, soundtrack,storyline, and quality are up to standard compared to TV shows and at sometimes Innovated.The show uses the internet so they can stay away from Seasonal schedules like TV shows, do to the fact they must have certain games that wouldn't be available at the time if they were to scheduled it like a TV series.The entire series has invented some of the most original characters that even Hollywood has failed to come up with.The show proves from time to time to use effects that are up to Hollywood studio standards.The show would be a hit on any network,but again they have to keep it to the internet for keeping Artistic Integrity,certain props needed I.E. Games because again the shows content, to avoid contracts and to keep original rights to the show.verification can be done in the following ways if needed, Articles done about the show in Know respected magazines, TV interviews from Networks, site hits from the official site using a IP counter when a episode is released,Ticket sales from a Live premier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.54.65 (talk) 02:45, 27 June 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. Kurykh 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soda & His Million Piece Band

The last time that this page was edited was two months ago when the article was tagged for possible deletion. It seems highly unlikely that somebody is going to create a substantial edit to this to make show notability. In past versions of this article, I was only able to find their myspace page as the only references for them, and a band that is only able to have a myspace page as their reference is very unlikely to be notable in my opinion. Based on this, I feel the article should be deleted. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. --DAJF (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found Amazon & Allmusic.com pages for them, but nothing to satisfy notability per WP:MUSIC. No prejudice for recreating article once WP:RS come to light. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability by WP:MUSIC

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might and Magic: The Dreamwright

Non-notable novels based on a video game franchise. I had initially suggested that the articles be merged into the Might and Magic franchise article, which is short anyway, but this was opposed on the basis that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that the articles were not yet in danger of being deleted (but now, here we are). Of course I am still open to the idea of merging, but these novels do not carry any notability of their own and cannot meet encyclopedic standards for articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, we have notability guidelines for books (though not at WP:BOOK, but rather WP:Notability (books)). And guess what? These don't even come close. gnfnrf (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:BK pretty much sums it up, it doesn't pass any of the criteria of notability. Boccobrock•T 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Novel written by Geary Gravel, published by Del Rey Books, as a licensed adaptation of Might and Magic. That's three aspects of notability. DS (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are three aspects of trivia. It doesn't matter who wrote, published, or licensed it if it isn't notable, and none of these things define notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say keep, as books from a mojor publisher seem notable to me. But policy disagrees, hence delete.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rest My Chemistry

Lacks reliable sources; does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article does not include sources, does not show notability, and wouldn't necessarily even require its own article at all. Unless significant changes are made, I say delete. BecauseWhy? (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to album/artist. Individual songs are usually not-notable, and it seems this was not even a single. Gives no info that couldn't better be found in the artist/album page.Yobmod (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E J McDonald

This is probably a hoax, no details at University of Exeter or Express and Echo websites for this "notable" person, Exeter is in Devon, not Cornwall, and as an unreferenced article could be construed as an attack page (speedy declined) Richhoncho (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete indistinguishable from hoax + attack page IMHO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trying to make sense of User:Turnerryan1992's other contributions, there was a prodded Victor c blair, was this same contributor the author of that as well? Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems likely to be a hoax. There is no Mcdonald on the staff of the history department at the University of Exeter, Cornwall campus, see[14]. Now the various BLP violating material has been removed from the article and it has been reduced to a couple of sentences. However, looking up its old version in the history log, and doing a bunch of google searches, I was not able to find anything to indicate that the person described in the initial version of the article even exists. Nsk92 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 11:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertchaser (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 obvious hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Baervoets

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Supposedly has been in this field since 1994, yet clearly fails WP:N. I think he meant to post this information on Monster. Unschool (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable resume.Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Designated Hitter (game show)

I did prod this, but prod removed, no Ghits, link supplied is a snippet of the gameshow "Trivial Pursuit" on YouTube and the subsequently added link bears no relation to the article Richhoncho (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I could see some primary sources on this article I'd be more than happy to remove the AfD.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move the bar to 1:08 to get the "Designated Hitter" part of the video. TVfanatic2K (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the lack of reliable sources and likely that sources would never be found, it only ran for 4 months in the 90's, and a pretty obscure show. Non-notable for these reasons. Boccobrock•T 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was under the impression that nationally broadcast TV shows were inherently notable, but this one seems to fail WP:V (it's tough to Google, though). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources would be even better than primary souces (this isn't listed in any TV guides?). As neither are forthcoming, must assume non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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