Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 11 August 2007

< August 10	August 12 >

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falkner Eggington Courts

Delete. It's a university residence of no particular importance. ^{[Check Google hits]} shows 111 hits, with 48 of them being "unique". Prod was removed by article's author with the comment "Reason for deletion didn't make sense to me. You'll see how notable the hall is once the page is finished." ... discospinster _talk 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is simply a reconstruction of the previously deleted one - see below. A redirect to Loughborough University would be far more appropriate. The precedent is the William Morris AfD; halls at Lufbra aren't notable in the same way as Oxbridge halls.

Do not delete Searching for "Falk-Egg", as the hall is more commonly known, gives you nearly 5000 hits, on the basis of a google search. 86.143.211.37 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Louisa[reply]
Do not delete I don't see what the problem is, surely Wikipedia is here with the aim of collecting and showing information. This page has been set up to provide information on the hall, which is so much more than just a collection of buildings. Also I don't see how someone who's never been there can label it as "of no particular importance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dastardly (talk • contribs)

Comment. Actually, I just searched "Falk-Egg" on Google, and it gave me 2000 hits (which I suppose is "nearly 5000"), with 160 of them "unique". And no, I have never been to Falk-Egg, but then again I've never been to your flat, but I can still tell you it's of no particular importance. Please see "what Wikipedia is not". ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing distinguishes this residence from the many other residences at unversities and colleges. No sources cited also. -- Whpq 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inevitably, an extremely provincial article. WP:NOT a campus building directory; this residence doesn't have notability in general. Tangentially, I think it would have been good form to omit the trivia section. My Alt Account 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Huon 18:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete luffduckcruft. AndyJones 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fourth item at Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas is "Your dormitory (unless it's on the Historic Register)." There is no assertion in the article that this dorm is on the Historic Register or equivalent. No assertion of notability in the article. GRBerry 01:50, 12 September 2006 (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 to Cattle, can be spun off again once there is more content. Sandstein 05:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yattle

~~Possible hoax, seems very dubious. No sources so it also fails WP:V~~ Questionable notability, only a single article, fails WP:V Rackabello 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article. The WP article reference is real. I have now included a link to the WP article. Is that better? Semobrooks 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has received significant coverage in a reliable source, likely more sources exist elsewhere. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anything that features a yak, should never be deleted. Not even edited- unless you're from Mongolia, and therefore know about yaks.Merkinsmum
Weak delete. Only one source to be found, the Washington Post article. Google turns up nothing else on "Yattle". Lack of additionaly sources has me wondering if maybe someone at the Post got duped... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has been covered outside. Yet, the article is very small. Expand... Brusegadi 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a neologism. One article - a whole one - from the Washington Post, and no indication that the phrase is being used regularly outside of that article - published today. This isn't a well-known or well-used phrase. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind; a merge to cattle would be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge into cattle. This may be a real term but the article is way too small to warrant inclusion. JIP | Talk 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Multiple independent reliable sources have been added with which to expand the article. 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - all of the articles added are reprints of the original article, which appears to have gone out on the AP wire, and the other is a photo gallery associated with the Washington Post. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've actually heard this word being used in a recent movie(I can't remember which one it was). I thought it was a messed up line and a movie goof. Thanks to this article, I now know that it's a real word and what it means. Leonardobonanni 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post actually just made an article about this subject on Saturday here. Zidel333 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. The WP article is the ONLY article using this word. Google News search. A regular Google search still only gets 1,100 hits, and most aren't referring to the crossbreed. WP:NEO, people. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad, but I still think it should be kept. I'm going to look for ranching manuels for info. Zidel333 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cattle per JIP. Even on cattle it would be a very short section, and unless and until there is additional information about the subject it doesn't need its own page. JCO312 19:18, 16 August 2007 (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 already speedied as having no assertion to notability. Chaser - T 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay strom

NN high school aged "rap artist" who hasn't had a single release yet. Everything about the article seems dubious, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, and WP:NOT Rackabello 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe this story plus ive heard about him in the seattle area hes pretty tight . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheranator (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 delete. Sean William @ 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freakum Dress

Delete: the song is not a single and has not garnered enough airplay or attention to be considered worthy of notability. i dont see the point of it getting its own article simply because it's a song by pop diva beyonce. 70.123.134.68 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remain: The song must remain on WikiPedia because it provides a complete information about the song, "Freakum Dress". What's the use of editing and creating articles if all of administrators only wants them to be deleted. Many time and effort will be lost because of that. Many users will don't have such interest to edit and create because they know that you will only delete it. You always delete or redirect pages to other articles that don't have enough information to call a encyclopedia article. Actually, users are not the destroyers of pages. In fact, we are the ones who create and edit pages to have more sufficient information. Administrators are the ones who delete pages and of course, destroy. They always redirect pages and delete it if they are not happy about the destruction that they give. Many pictures are deleted by that administrators. All they want is to destroy, destruct and offend many users of this website. -- Adam levine ian bagg 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is to have legitimate articles with useful information. You complain because you always have things you post get deleted because you never seem to follow the rules. If you don’t like what happens to your edits don’t post at all because EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is subject to change and deletion. Ratizi1 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remain: Beyonce songs all have a lot of information and so since it does provide new information (not found on the B'Day page), I feel it should stay. Besides, if the song does become a single, converting it to a single page will be easy. Jgcarter 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: The person who nominated it for deletion doesnt even have a username and I am wondering how legitimate this is Jgcarter 17:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The first AfD can be found here. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable album track. The song has not been released as a single, and no plans have been announced to release it in the future. It has not debuted on any notable charts. It also fails WP:MUSIC. --musicpvm 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per musicpvm. Additionally it gives very little extra info that could be gleaned from looking at the CD booklet and anyone likely to be interested in this article would most likely have the CD anyway. WP seems to be turning into an Allmusic mirror everyday. WebHamster 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This song has not charted and has not been released in anyway other than a video. Ratizi1 00:31, 16 August 2007 (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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Stephan Schulz 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 5

No evidence of notability has been found Dicklyon 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful rebuttal of my claim that "No evidence of notability has been found" would be to point out one or more reliable secondary sources about the square root of 5. Then of course I would change my position to keep instead of delete. But barring such citations, the article should be deleted, according to WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, this number is far more notable than, say, 71 (number), 93 (number), or most numbers for which we have an article. There are books and theses dedicated to this number. As an alternative, I'd suggest redirect to Golden ratio. Owen× ☎ 22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument carries no weight. But if you can find those books and articles, and cite them, the reason for this AfD will go away and we'll be done. Dicklyon 22:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well written sourced article. The notability comes from its link with the golden ration. Deleting this would be removing material that should be in an encyclopedia. --Bduke 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the evidence of Wikipedia:notability, that is, notability as wikipedia defines it? "This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." Dicklyon 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not nessacary. Perhaps might be suitable for Wikibooks.. Rackabello 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same opinion as Bduke. pom 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per OwenX and Bduke. I consider this a very weak nomination. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions are noted, but they don't get us closer to evidence of notability. Are you suggesting that an AfD based on lack of evidence of notability is inherently weak? Or something else? Dicklyon 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notability is all over the article, IMHO. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which cited references do you consider to be in that category? You do realize, I presume, that the term "evidence of notability" means citations to reliable secondary sources. Dicklyon 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I know what evidence of notability means as used on Wikipedia, and if your point is that perhaps the article could use some additional references, you are probably right. But we are talking about a number, not an individual or an organization, and the notability of a number is an inherent fact rather than a human construct. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about ANY references to secondary sources about the square root of 5; there are NONE now (please mention a ref number, one of 1 through 6, if you see one that is not self-published and is about the square root of 5). And I must have missed that section of WP:NOTE about numbers not needing evidence like everything else. Dicklyon 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still viscerally find this nomination absurd. Obviously there are references out there; based on your userpage, you probably have more subject-matter knowledge with which to track them down than I do. If I hadn't commented already I probably would speedy-close this as an obvious keep. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. The gut as Steven Colbert puts it, often overrides logic, as it should. But maybe not so within wikipedia rules. Anyway, find at least one source if you want to support the idea that it's notable. Dicklyon 01:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does, then I suppose I will. But in the meantime I'm close to closing this debate as a WP:POINT violation. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well referenced and well written article. Just because some people do not find a subject interesting is not reason to delete the article. meshach 01:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting enough; it just lacks evidence of notability. Dicklyon 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because notability comes from its connections with the golden ratio and its occurrence in Diophantine approximations and in various curious identities found by Ramanujan and others. Michael Hardy 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has references. It is a good read for anyone interested in the golden ratio since its irrationality lies on the square root of five. I feel that deleting it per lack of notability would be stretching WP:NOTE. Furthermore, there is a planet math page on this topic. Brusegadi 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided establish notability for the number as a mathematical concept above and beyond other numbers, satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 02:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inherently notable. --Malcolmxl5 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the same argument that the article "must" be deleted barring citations of one or more reliable secondary sources about the square root of 5, the article 5 (number) "must" be deleted. And also the article 5 about the year 5 CE. These numbers and the year are referenced in many reliable sources, but that does not mean the sources are "about" the number or year. No sources address the subject of the year 5 directly in detail. If the notion of notability requires that sources are written "about" it, then apparently that is not a notion that can be applied in a foolproof way, without using some common sense, to determine whether something is an encyclopedic topic. --Lambiam 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are we voting to delete this when there are hundreds of less worthy number articles like 93 (number) and 211? Frankly I wouldn't mind deleting every single such number article, and having done so I wouldn't mind if someone proposed to delete this as well, but while we still have all those, an extensive article like this seems well within precedent to keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we're not voting, but rather discussing the issues related to this concept. FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per discussion above. Inherently notable, per malcomx15, and relevant to all sorts of things -- math education, number theory, the Golden mean, architecture and engineering. Now it is snowing, folks. Bearian 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- inherently notable. Part of me wants to claim bad faith nomination as user clearly has a scientific background, but I'm going to WP:AGF and chalk it up to being outside his field. JPG-GR 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "outside my field". I just think that numbers should meet criteria like other subjects; that means someone has to find and cite at least a couple of reliable secondary sources about the subject; nobody has done that, and I can't find such sources myself; so the AfD is an attempt to force the "inherently notable" opiners to put up or shut up. I would be perfectly happy to a keep outcome, if such sources can be found and cited. So far, none of what's cited is an independent reliable source about the subject of the article. Dicklyon 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per OwenX and Bduke. As newyorkbrad said: I consider this a very weak nomination. Mathmo ^Talk 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guidelines say "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Clearly, the square root of 5 satisfies this criterion. -- Dominus 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly? Why not point out a few that we can cite then, so we can end this? Dicklyon 05:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a reference for the Ramanujan identities to hopefully satisfy User:Dicklyon. It features sqrt(5) pretty prominently. Most of the material of this article links to other pages, such as Fibonacci numbers or golden ratio. We don't have to give references for the notability of F.n. or g.r. here, but do so at the appropriate pages. Jakob.scholbach 06:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we had any shortage of places where the square root of 5 appears in formulae, even prominently. But do those refs discuss the square root of 5? Or is it used just as any other number would be that happened to appear in a formula? You know, I have a book on pi, and a book on e, and a book the square root of -1, and a book on the golden ratio, and a book on zero, and a book on infinity, and classic copy of Los Alamos Science magazine on the Feigenbaum constants; if there's a book or article on the square root of five that I've missed, I'd like to get a copy for my collection. Dicklyon 06:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like Category:Japanese voice actors, I think. They too appear in formulae, even prominently. But there's much less to say about just about any of them (any of them at all?) than there is about the square root of five, which is elegant and alluring to boot. -- Hoary 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And delete Square root of 4 as well, as it is just plain silliness. It is a waste of server space to create a page for every irrational number, and two for every rational number (2, square root of 4). 199.125.109.35 06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sqrt(4) is strange indeed. But, as you may not have noticed, there is not (yet...) an article about every irrational number, for example pi - e is awaiting its birth. Otherwise we would need Hilbert's server and also an infinite monkey to write all the stuff. Jakob.scholbach 06:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with these opinions of strangeness and silliness? Whatever happened to discussing relationships to wikipedia policy? Oh, I see what you mean; the infinite number of monkeys does make that a very low probability. Dicklyon 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a notable number. JIP | Talk 07:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Hardy and because I like it. But a special Fighting Spirit Award for the tenacious Dicklyon. -- Hoary 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take it; nobody's ever given me an award on wikipedia before, and this sounds like a good one; I should also get a "great parody" award for the square root of 4, don't you think? Especially the statistics section; it took some work to find two refs stating that the square root of four was used that way, to effectively mock the guy who claimed the same thing for the square root of five with two refs (since removed by me from that article, since it was absurd). At least I did flush out at least one actual ref (the Hurwitz's theorem one) where the square root of five is the unique nontrivial constant that makes this result work. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that the 1956 ref actually does talk about the square root of five, making it at least marginally notable (in the wikipedia sense), as opposed to just a number that shows up in a lot of formulae. Dicklyon 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While I personally can't understand what makes the square root of 5 a special number, there may be sources backing up the notability of the number. However, until a good deal of reliable sources are found to clear up any notability problems, the article should be deleted. It can always be recreated later. --clpo13_(talk) 08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:SENSE. Unfortunately WP:NOTE has to make generalizations about millions of articles. No one is going to write a book about the square root of 5, but the subject is so clearly notable, useful, and encyclopedic that I'm highly inclined to make use of WP:IGNORE here. — xDanielx^Talk 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, books have been written about this number, although since most were published in the 19th century or earlier, you won't find them on Amazon.com or at your local library. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've got me interested. Nineteenth-century books on the square root of 5, who'd a thunk it? Amazon schmamazon; we can look via Copac, for example. Can we have a title or two? (Meanwhile, thanks again to Dicklyon for kicking off this stimulating and illuminating AfD.) -- Hoary 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're a subject matter expert already familiar with the paper, life is too short to scan through the thousands of publications by Euler, de Moivre and Binet, looking for something that might very well be titled "On the Ratio of the Diagonal of the Double Rectangle", "Properties of the 1:2 Right Triangle" or such. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, convinced me. If evidence of notability is hard to find, we simply forego it. I'll keep that in mind. Dicklyon 15:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sarcasm. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here, but the fate of this AfD is pretty much determined at this point. Your Square root of 4 article was funny, so we'll ignore the fact that it was a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point; what that point was--I'm not sure. If you have nothing better to do, go and expand one of the hundreds of articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that it's actually not so hard to find articles specifically on the square root of 4, yet for some reason we're willing to call the square root of 5 notable even though we can't find any independent secondary sources about it. Sort of like the AfD on Maria Hart; if enough people think the subject is interesting or has appeared in important places, then we disregard WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be noticed, for instance, that Poncelet, in the Cours de Mécanique appliquée aux machines studied specifically certain forms of radicals, like ${\sqrt {x^{2}+y^{2}}}$ and ${\sqrt {x^{2}-y^{2}}}$ . This study, related to numerical approximation of radicals, has been continued by others. See for example Léauté, H. Note sur le calcul approché par la méthode de Poncelet des radicaux de la forme ${\sqrt {x^{2}-y^{2}}}$ . Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 8 (1880), pp. 106-109. It appears that ${\sqrt {5}}$ is of both forms: ${\sqrt {5}}={\sqrt {2^{2}+1^{2}}}={\sqrt {3^{2}-2^{2}}}$ . pom 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that just put the square root of 5 into yet one more infinite set? What's your point? Dicklyon 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are just the square roots of (sequence A097268 in the OEIS), which I assume is infinite. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a mathematical point of view, you will find no book on a particular constant (books on pi, e, i, 0 et 1 are more of a phylosophical or nature). If you prefer metaphysical raisons for the notability of the square root of 5, you may refer to Robert Lawlor, Sacred Geometry, Thames & Hudson, 1982, p. 37, 61, who explains the importance of the square root of 5 in the Ancient Egypt. See also John Anthony West, Serpent in the Sky, Quest Books, 1993, p. 42. You should not ask for a whole publication dedicated to a single number. By the way, I know no publication only concerned with the square root or with the subtraction, what does not mean that these operations are not notable ones. pom 17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; you can't prove non-notability by what you don't know about. And I'm not insisting on whole books on the subject; that was just a counter to something someone said above. Articles on the subject would be fine. Dicklyon 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a summary of that content, from those sources two would be a nice addition to the article. Paul August ☎ 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close - WP:NOTE in the context of AfD is not about actual citations in a Wikipedia article. It is about the likelihood that WP:RS material is available from which to develop the Wikipedia article. Of course the Square root of 5 is going to be addressed in multiple math books. That alone is enough to meet WP:NOTE even if the article itself was unreferenced. There are practicable application for the Square root of 5 noted in WP:RS's and that material is available for the article as well. I too consider this a very weak nomination, which would justify an early close. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maybe we need to amend WP:NOTE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence to make this more clear "in the context of AfD". Dicklyon 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence addresses a need to use objective evidence in determining notability (e.g., reliable sources) rather than using subjective evidence (e.g., does/does not seem famous/important to me). Notability requires the existence of objective evidence. It does not require the actual use of objective evidence in the article as far as AfD is concerned. By the number of keep reasons in this AfD, most people understand this so there is no reason to amend WP:NOTE. There is enough reliable source coverage to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about the square root of 5. That the reliable source coverage has not been provided in the article to your satisfaction is not a basis for listing the article for deletion; it is a basis for improving the article. If you really like to know more about what the San Jose Mercury News article said about the square root of 5 in music[1], I did provide a reference to the San Jose Mercury News article which you can find at most major libraries. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see; but I don't agree. In many cases, there are enough reliable sources of facts to write an article, but we don't because the subject is not notable. It's not a good idea to mix the notability requirements with the verifiability requirements. Both are independently important. In fact, much of what's in the article is suitably sourced by now. But the sources are not about the subject. WP:NOTE says: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. My beef is that none of the sources provide significant coverage of the square root of 5; it's just a number that happens to come up in what they're covering. I'm not claiming that such sources CAN'T be found, but that we shouldn't have the article unless they are. That's the way I read notability. Have I got it wrong? Dicklyon 02:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced, important and notable number. --- RockMFR 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that most (actually any page on a number I randomly chose, except sqrt(2)) contain definitely less of encyclopedic material in the sense User:Dicklyon is perhaps looking for than this article. For example 720 (number), 193 (number), or Square root of 3 or 36 (number) contain only trivial/non-notable facts and list contexts in which the number in question occurs. In view of this, if this discussion comes to the result of delete, it would necessarily entail the deletion of lots of number-related articles in the List of numbers. Jakob.scholbach 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me; but since the result will be keep, we won't get to go there. But when you notice such articles, you ought to at least tag them with unreferenced and notability tags; I went ahead and did the ones you found. Dicklyon 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does putting notability tags on these articles serve any useful purpose? Newyorkbrad 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It usually doesn't seem to, but it's supposed to alert editors to find and add citations to independent reliable secondary sources, with the implication that the article may be deleted if they don't. Dicklyon 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, putting those notability tags there was just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One might as well start putting those tags on practically every Wikipedia article on numbers, starting with the articles on 1 (number) and 2 (number) which do not cite a single reference to "stablish their notability". Uaxuctum 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please don't assign motives to me; assume good faith. Those articles had zero citations, which means they lack both sources and evidence of notability. Jakob.scholbach was serious, I presume, in noting that they are considerably less notable than the square root of 5, which I also tagged in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would revert your removals of the tags, which I placed in good faith. Oh, and I had already put the unreferenced tags on 1 and 2; I held off putting notability tags there, even though the evidence is missing, because I did not want to give the impression that I thought those numbers were not notable within wikipedia guidelines; the evidence should still be found and added, of course. And please don't invoke the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument with me. Dicklyon 20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to including the "unreferenced" tag if it is meant to promote the addition of sources and additional material to improve those articles. But to start questioning the notability of such numbers as 36 and Theodorus's constant is ludicrous. Among a plethora of other things, 36 is the smallest square triangular number greater than 1, and if Theodorus's constant is not notable, then I wonder how it even got a proper a name. Besides, the WikiProject:Numbers endorses having articles for all integers from -1 to 200, which includes 193. For its part, 720 is notable for several things mentioned in the article, including its being (like 36) one of the not-so-may highly composites (which are the "opposite" of primes and much rarer than them). Uaxuctum 20:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to ask Jakob.scholbach if he meant to be serious, or ludicrous, when he mentioned that those articles have nothing but trivia, and no reason to think the numbers in question are "notable" per wikipedia guidelines. I took him seriously; perhaps I was duped. I hadn't notice the root 3 is also named Theodorus's constant, which I would agree almost certainly means it is notable; can you find us a ref about that and cite it? Dicklyon 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge. I have no problem with the number, but I think it is short of the threshold for having an article (independent of golden ratio). Charles Matthews 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hurwitz's theorem and Ramanujan's identities seem independent of the golden ratio idea. Michael Hardy 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be accurate and informative.Eregli bob 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable number. All information is referenced. --musicpvm 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good info. - grubber 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know whether the version I'm looking at is radically different to the one nominated (there seems to have been much activity recently), but it's currently supremely well sourced, thus asserting notability. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been improved a lot. It's still not clear that any of the refs for the various uses and trivia are actually suitable evidence of notability, and it doesn't meet the notability guidelines for numbers, but it's enough better that we can probably tolerate it now. Dicklyon 06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's plenty of good information here and the contexts the number appears in (eg golden rectangle) indicate plenty of "notability" to me. Bryan Derksen 15:48, 13 August 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Gay Sweden

Non-notable beauty pageant not covered in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's difficult to judge the notability of this topic without knowing Swedish. I suggest tagging the article and giving editors with specialized knowledge an opportunity to find references. Otherwise, we risk deleting the article because it represents a minority interest or is covered mainly in foreign-language sources. Valerius 02:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying "delete and salt." The stub article doesn't cite any sources, and no one has been able to find any. If someone can find sources they can use that to write a proper article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Navou ^banter 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If the page exists in the Swedish wikipedia I will change my view to keep. That to me will establish that it is important beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, we ran the peril of having a hoax article, being used for promotion, etc. Brusegadi 02:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the related Gay Euro contests. The contest system holds little interest outside the gay male world but that's hardly reason for deletion. Benjiboi 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of more reliable sources. I concur about the concerns raised by Brusegadi. JCO312 19:23, 16 August 2007 (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 no consensus hard to read consensus here even after discounting those silly OMG 34 years, keep votes. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Young and the Restless storylines

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 22:15, 11 *August 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per WP:PLOT: Quote: "...should contain real-world context and sourced analysis,". Aside from soap opera fan sites, and magazines, one would be very hard pressed to find any soap opera storyline that was "newsworthy". ^Ariel♥Gold 22:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, adding real life context where applicable. The modal very "should" indicates a recommendation, not obligation. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This article is not totally a 100 percent plot summary. For example, in the Lauralee Bell section, there is an undeveloped discussion about actress Lauralee Bell, the daughter of the show's co-creator, and how another cast member quit the show because of what he perceived to be nepotism. The Recasting section begins a discussion on the impact of the show's recasting. The 2000s ratings erosion begins to talk about the producers failing to spark ratings by introducing highly publicized storylines. All of this content needs to be cleaned up and cited, not merely deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zzyzx11. Mathmo ^Talk 04:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is called "The Young and the Restless storylines". It might as well be called "Plot of The Young and the Restless". It is inherently a plot summary, no amount of clean-up can change that. --Phirazo 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT - Not the place for plot summaries. You just cant inject two lines of non-plot items and expect to say it is not plot summary. The entire plot summary is sourced from the primary sources, with plenty of original research Corpx 06:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not all plot summary. Needs sourcing, but should just be tagged as unreferenced.Gung adin 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any non-plot information that can be scraped out should be merged into the main article.--DLand ^TALK 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was made because the main article had become too unwieldy. To get an article to a presentable standard, sometimes daughter articles are pertinent. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to trim the plot summary, instead of expanding it into a new article Corpx 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show has gone on for almost 35 years. It gets to a point where trimming comes at the expense of the dissemination of information. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Batman has been running since 1939, yet there is no Storylines of Batman article. "Better here than there" is not a very good reason to keep this article. Reducing plot summaries in the main article is fine, but that doesn't mean it should be placed in its own article. Every article, by itself, must be within policy, and this article is not. --Phirazo 02:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per ample precedent. Biggspowd 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has plenty of real-world context, and is referenced. This is also a good spinoff article from the main Y&R page, per WP:SUMMARY. --El on ka 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This show has been going for 34 years and a separate "storylines" article is necessary to cover all of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kogsquinge (talk • contribs)
- This is not information that should be covered in Wikipedia at all, but most especially not in a stand-alone article. See WP:NOT#PLOT. --Phirazo 17:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we all agree that WP:NOT#PLOT does not say that there should not be plot information at all, but rather that such summaries should not be "solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Normally that would mean that this should be deleted, however, WP:Summary would suggest that the plot information that would appropriately be in the Young and the Restless entry should perhaps be separated out to avoid length problems. I think that creates a conflict between the policies. To me, this is a different problem than Batman or Superman, which have been running for a long time, but less frequently. This show is on 5 days a week and has been on for more than 30 years. According to the article there have been 8,709 episodes. Condensing that into a single section is impossible. Since I view this as a conflict between two policies, I would err on the side of keeping content, hence I would keep it. JCO312 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is policy, while WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. Corpx 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that changes my opinion on this. I think that technical violation of WP:NOT is acceptable to satisfy the guidelines of WP:Summary and WP:Length. To expand on this slightly, I think this is a fairly rare situation where it just makes sense to deviate from the WP:NOT policy. There aren't a lot of mediums that have the volume of material that soap operas have. Given that volume, it becomes impossible to integrate the material into the main article without making it absurdly long. Rather than lose the content, which is clearly acceptable and is found on nearly every article about a film, television show or book, it makes sense to me to keep a separate entry. JCO312 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as per above. Break all rules if it hinders development of Wikipedia which is the case as above.Zginder 01:55, 17 August 2007 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Briefing

This magazine seems to be of parochial interest but is not notable and does not assert any notability. Moreover, a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWeak Delete - When articles on goods or services in wikipedia do not assert notability I think its best they be deleted. If some third party sources are found I would change my view to keep.Brusegadi 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Per below comments about popularity in Australia. Brusegadi 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Briefing has been around for over 10 years and is published in Australia, England and America. Like any other niche publication it is not well known in the mainstream press but it is well known among Christians in Australia and is growing in profile in England and America. It is also notable for the fact of it being a good expression of 'Sydney Anglicanism,' a disproportionately influential evangelical group of Christians. All that aside I doubt the neutrality of nondistinguished, (Who nominated this article for deletion.) because if they were really serious about pursuing this topic they would included reputable circulation sources instead of a vague reference to a quick search of google.Knobbly 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assert a notability among certain groups but provide no evidence for your assertion. I have no doubt that this publication expresses a particular viewpoint and that it has subscribers and people who are aware of it. However, I question whether it is rises to the level of notability as outlined by the consensus of Wikipedians. You also should be careful in your insinuations of bias. Everybody has a bias, as pointed out in our neutrality guidelines. You have a bias, I have a bias, we all have biases. However, that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to put aside those biases and discuss whether or not a subject is notable or not. If you have circulation data, please offer them for us to consider. But don't just attack my good faith nomination please. Nondistinguished 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I don't have any figures, yet. But just importantly, neither do you! Your making a deletion request based on what? A link to notability?? More realistically you should outline clearly what each of your reasons are for deletion. Like: Circulation below 10,000, Not enough Google hits, Not mentioned in the Australian Newspapers, etc. This would make it easier to prove or disprove and would be less susceptible to bias or agenda. I also wonder how you exactly measure notability. Are you going to go after Eureka Street next or the Central Western Daily?Knobbly 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my explanation is clear enough as to why I don't think the subject is notable. Namely, there does not seem to be any third-party coverage of this magazine. If you believe differently, you are free in this discussion to list your reasons. It is my stated belief that WP:N gives fairly clear criteria and that this particular article does not rise to the standards outlined there. What's more, we are debating this article only. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for these deletion debates. Nondistinguished 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITSis not a good measure for proving how un-notable something is.Knobbly 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason to delete this article. Currently it is small, but it has the potential to be expanded and improved. The Briefing has a wide readership in at least 2 countries. I have come across many other articles on topics which are far less notable, in my view, yet they have not been put up for deletion. Tonicthebrown 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence here is perilously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keeping this article. Let's try to avoid that kind of argument, please. Nondistinguished 11:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not show that the magazine is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. There are no third-party sources at all. By its nature, if a magazine is influential, you would expect that it would be commented on in the press. EdJohnston 05:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been commented on by the Sydney Morning Herald, though I would have to dig through their archives. Is that notable enough for you? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tonicthebrown, couldnt have put it better myself --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete looks to me that it might not have any sort of notability outside its target audience, showing in the lack of coverage from RS Corpx 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Odd nomination to say the least, perhaps reflecting the lack of sources in the article mentioned by EdJohnston rather than the notability of the subject. This is clearly a well known and substantially quoted magazine, if hard to google as the word "briefing" is not that unusual, but I quite quickly found examples of non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. Here are three (which I will also add into the article):

1) Cross Rhythms has a substantial discussion about the magazine’s critique of a Hillsong Church event[[2]].

2) Ronald McCaulay’s paper ‘The Great Commissions’ (Cambridge Papers, Vol 7 No 2, June 1998) [[3]] criticises an article in the magazine, clearly treating it as a significant and notable publication whose views (though in this case unhelpful) had to be considered.

3) The campaign group ‘The Micah Challenge’ recommend it as a “gatekeeper for new ideas and approaches”[[4]].

Regards to all fellow Wikipedians. Springnuts 07:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort Springnuts, but in all of these references the coverage of the magazine is trivial. Can you identify a reliable secondary source which discusses The Briefing instead of just mentioning it or citing it?--Yannick 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake! You wanted to know if it was notable. These references show notability, because the articles are about what the magazine has said. They most definitely demonstrate notability. I should also note that the Cambridge Papers is a reliable source. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, these sources show that The Briefing carries articles about notable subjects, not that the magazine itself is notable. I am not disputing the reliability or independence of Springnuts's sources; I am pointing out that they do not include substantial coverage of the magazine in question. For example, if we were trying to establish the notability of Maclean's magazine, I would be looking for a source like this one which reports on a new editor-in-chief, or maybe this paper which discusses Maclean's role in Canadian culture. Pulling out a bunch of citations to Maclean's magazine would be insufficient evidence of notability.--Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep evidently, the one doing the listing doesn't realise the tremendous influence this magazine has over Sydney Anglicans, nor do they understand that it is one of the strongest voices of Mathias Media. This magazine is very notable within this circle, and is very controversial outside of this circle. Strongly advise that this article be kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per the above who have resolved to keep, plus as someone from Sydney, I know that the view of the Sydney Anglican Diocese is often well-espoused and mentioned by outside media often by referring to the Briefing and its authors and associates - frequently the opinions of persons such as Phillip Jensen (which are controversial according to many outside the diocese, both Christian and non-Christian) have been discussed through the magazine. JRG 08:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the nominator's entirely flawed reasoning. He says "a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia". So a 'quick' google by one person means that this article could NEVER be notable because sources could never be found? The absurdity of that statement has already been demonstrated with other sources being discovered and given here. Nick mallory 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks reliable secondary sources about the magazine. Nobody's saying that we will never find these sources, or that they will never be written, but you'll have to point them out to us naysayers in order to establish notability to our satisfaction.--Yannick 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out to everyone that this is not a valid deletion reason. We have never deleted due to article quality. If the article is poor, send it to cleanup. We only delete in situations where there is no way of validating or referencing information, or in cases where the article is deliberately POV or unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I think you are wrong, Yannick on a number of counts. You make two points: one in your edit (lacks reliable secondary sources) and another in your edit summary, but not in your edit, (Not true. Scroll up to see my edit, please.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)) that the sources found are trivial. OK:[reply]

Since I give sources you are presumably saying they are not secondary, and/or not reliable. I picked two of the three precisely as they are in various ways critical of the magazine. They are by people un-connected with the magazine and show that analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation that secondary sources will show. Their reliability is suggested by their being written by people unconnected with the magazine, and by their criticality.

But secondly, I should not need to make the arguments above. The original complaint was "no sources" - now that some have been found and added the 'burden of proof' has shifted. It is no good now just saying that the sources are trivial - you have to argue the point, not just assert. Engaging in a debate, rather than slinging bare assertions, is one way that we all demonstrate our good faith. So stand at the bar and shy at the coconuts - I've lined three up for you!

<Removed own unnecessary, grumpy and not very graceful comment>. Springnuts 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts, please engage in the debate by scrolling up the page and looking at my response to your sources. In that earlier edit, I explained that your sources provide trivial coverage of the magazine. I agree that they are independent and may be reliable, but they just mention The Briefing, rather than discuss it. This is evidence that the magazine exists, and that some of its articles may have been notable, but this is not evidence of the magazine's notability.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article that lacks sufficient sources needs to be sourced, not deleted. This and this appear to be independent, albeit Christian, sources that reference The Briefing and suggest notability. bobanny 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed independent sources that cite articles from The Briefing, but they say very little about the magazine itself. This indicates that The Briefing publishes articles about notable topics, but does not establish the notability of the magazine itself. --Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per bobanny RegRCN 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you know anything about the Anglican church in Australia then you'd understand the reason this magazine is notable. The Briefing is regularly mentioned (perhaps unfairly) as the journal of the Anglican Church League in discussions of religion in Sydney and Australia. The magazine is also notable because of its association with the Jensen's and leaders within the evangelical movement in Australia. Journeyman 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A magazine is not notable because a few scattered sources refer to a few articles in it, and all the citations given seem to be of that sort. If Journeyman can show that this is regularly considered the voice of a notable religious group, then the magazine is notable.DGG (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2007 (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 both. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Marshman

This is a vanity artacle about someone who doesn't seem to be notable. If you look up the history you can see that its virtually all been done by User:Brookie - all the other contributions seem to be people tidying up rather than adding their own knowledge. Looking into it further, it would seem that the subject of the artacle is Brookie's father - if you look at this page User:Brookie/Wiki connections, Arthur Marshman is listed under "People I am related to" and "Entries with a family connection" - there is also a photo on this page of the church where Brookie got married, and the same photo of the same page is on the Arthur Marshman artacle as "where he (and one of his sons) were married" so I'm pretty 100% sure that this is Brookie's own father we are talking about.

~~As an aside, putting "and one of his sons" into the artacle is a bit of a sneaky way to list yourself in an artacle!~~ I've tried looking up Arthur Marshman on google and there are under a thousand hits, and all of these seem to be either different people with the same name or artacles on other sites which actually copy the data from this very same wikipeida artacle. So on top of being a vanity artacle I don't think this is a very noteworthy person for an artacle.

It says in the artacle that he founded a company which was at one time about 40 years ago the biggest architectgs in UK, but I can't find any evidence of this and it has been tagged as "fact" and if you look back through the history you can see that twice before this tag has been inserted, and instead of providing the facts to back this up BROOKIE HAS JUST TAKEN THE TAG AWAY ~~AND HOPED THAT NO-ONE WOULD NOTICE~~. On one ocasion he (or she, but I think its a he as the Arthur Marsham artacle says one of his sons got married at that church, and this seems to be Brookie) has ~~even had the audacity to~~ put in his edit summary that was he did was to "tidy" when what he was doing was taking out the "fact" tag without providing any evidence! ~~That's really out of order behaviour, and Brookie is an administrator who should know better.~~ Here is what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Marshman&diff=135997584&oldid=135875208 and it suggests that he has no evidence, its just what has been told to him through family hearsay. BonzoBabe 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, and another thing. The only source which tries to add any credibility is the link at the bottom to this page: http://www.worldhouseinfo.com/ ~~This page would seem to be set up by Brookie although I have no proof for this, but~~ it really badly skews its attempt to define what a house is by massively focusing on the very house designed by Arthur Marshman, using the same photo as on this page, and all the info about other houses seems to have been taken from wikipedia, and its run from a gmail address, and the whole site seems to serve no purpose other than to provide alleged credence for the Arthur Marshman article. BonzoBabe 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm getting to the bottom of the odd worldhouseinfo.com article - its actually been lifted from an old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House&oldid=10525932 of a wikipedia page in which Brookie had added details of Arthur Marshman's "cheese house" to the house page. This has obviously been removed since, but Brookie has then added a link to the Arthur Marshman artacle to a page which has been created using an old version of a wikipedia page on which he had "bigged up" Arthur Marshman's cheese house. ~~All very silly~~. BonzoBabe 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - added Marshman Warren Taylor to this nomination. Deiz talk 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What does "Pevsner, Nikolaus, The Buildings of England – Northamptonshire" say about this person? That is a very reliable source and might, just might, demonstrate notability. Could someone in UK check it out. I can not do so in Australia. Until that is checked out, I have no opinion. --Bduke 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the house which is the main feature of the article is apparently the principal author's family home. DGG (talk)`
Comment2 The principal author is a respected WP admin, and was apparently not notified. Since some of the comments here are personally critical, there's even more reason to notify than usual, and I have done so. DGG (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it didn't occur to me to notify the author. I'm still learning, and have only recently opened an account instead of editing anon. And I can see now that some of my comments are indeed quite personally critical and I will strike through and retract those. Thanks for your comment. BonzoBabe 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. He designs nice houses, and has worked on some decent projects, as any architect would hope to do. Beyond that... ? Claims of being the largest practice of the time are unverified and not terribly exciting. Deiz talk 11:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any real notability. More a vanity page than anything else. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Marshman's work is interesting, but that's not the criterion here. I can find just one article in NewBank referring to him: a 2001 property section piece in the Sunday Times about Horton Rounds being up for sale. That really isn't enough. Gordonofcartoon 18:27, 16 August 2007 (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Weinman

The article is poorly referenced with some dubious claims and lacks notablity tagged since October 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seen as an authority on web design, with several known books in the field. Her website, Lynda.com, was featured in Forbes. Cleanup dubious claims.--Sethacus 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Lacks verifiability in reliable secondary sources, a problem that appears (based upon my own efforts) difficult to rectify. If this problem can be resolved, then it may be notable enough to warrant keeping and NPOV-ifiying. Jakew 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article could be better written it shouldn't detract from the fact that Lynda Weinman has been at the forefront of CBT both on her website and via computer videos. She is certainly notable from that standpoint alone. She's taught me a thing or two :) WebHamster 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well-known designer, teacher and author and authority in multiple fields. I'll do some work on the article, could be difficult but I'm sure she is notable at least. --Canley 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , article was in a sorry state but she appears to be notable regardless. Mathmo ^Talk 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources means no way to verify any of the claims made. Non-notable self-promotion. Valrith 17:59, 12 August 2007 (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 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adonica Shaw

Lack of notability and CoI WebHamster 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability suitable for iMDB but not for an encyclopaedia article and as the article is self-penned there's a distinct possibility of CoI. WebHamster 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss Black California is not inherently notable and I dont think she has any other claims for notability Corpx 06:33, 12 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furtling

Non-notable neologism. Guerrilla advertising for a book and a brewery. If it can be shown that the word had this usage in the 20th century let alone the 19th, then I would change to "weak keep". (I have restored all previous versions. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furtling had a "weak keep" result but the article was deleted a few days later as an expired prod.) -- RHaworth 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about it being a neologism (what's the cut off point for the "neo" bit? :) ). It is certainly a colloquialism used in my part of the world (NW England) and has been for many years. It was actually a stock in trade utterance of the English raconteur Blaster Bates who was professionally active during the 60s and 70s. Anyone who's heard any of his material would recognise the expression. Though the interpretation round here is non-sexual and is just a generalised euphemism for "rummage about". WebHamster 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the guerrilla advertisement. Also the article is poorly written, which is a standard in SPAM articles...hit and run is what they do. Brusegadi 02:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was written by Tiffany McKirdy. There is also a Tiffany McKirdy, marketing manager for drinks manufacturer Fentimans. What a coincidence. -- RHaworth 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This is not a coincidence. Neither is it a 'hit and run'. Since Fentimans was introduced to the idea of furtling, I have had an intellectual interest in the etymology of this word. My academic background (despite my poor writing skills) is in English Literature and I had hoped that by making a contribution to Wikipedia, this would result in some concrete evidence of the early use of the term 'furtling'. I was not contributing under a pseudonym and I have no vested interest in promoting the book, which I came across while researching the term. I would be happy to see the final paragraph removed, although it seems relevant that this expression is being used in 2007 in a similar way to its earlier application. I would like to add the Blaster Bates reference and expand and improve this article.Tiffany McKirdy 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, unsourced, disguised advertisement. Mel sa ran 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Part of the reason for the unopposed prod so soon after the previous AfD were some comments on the talk page that brought the legitimacy of the sources to question. The talk page, of course, was deleted together with the article. I've restored it for now, but just for the record, I'll also copy the relevant comments (of which the former was actually first posted by the anon into the article itself) below:
Furtling is probably a hoax. Silver Burton's book is the only source of the ref in Encyclopaedia of Unusual Sex Practices. Burton is the author of Kokigami, which describes the art of wrapping the penis in paper costumes, and Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.35 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This word is simply UK slang for "fiddling around": eg "furtling around for change in my pocket." This article appears to be based on a joke from a humorous book, no other ref except the Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, which simply repeats the definition given in the book verbatim. -- The Anome 17:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22 Greatest Voices in Music

This was tagged as speedy for nonsense, but doesn't qualify so I took it off the chopping block. I'm bringing it to you, the kind people, to decide this one. I would have PROD'd it, but it is actively being worked on. the_undertow ^talk 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The kind people? Us? Mandsford 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree, its not {{db-nonsense}} material, I can make heads and tails of it. Still doesn't belong here though. Rackabello 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, trivial, objectively meaningless. Abberley2 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Delete It could be filed under non sense, OR, advertisement... add on! Brusegadi 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and Blender Magazine, etc. --Phirazo 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has failed to provide a rationale for nominating the article for deletion. Moreover, half of the editors here who suggest that the page be deleted have also failed to give a valid reason. It seems there is a growing tendency for people to want an article deleted simply because it needs to be worked on. Deletion shouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind; it isn't an accomplishment. Orane (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, I'll list a few. Without secondary sources, this is inherently POV (as it stands, the list is presented as The Truth, the article would need a secondary source to assess this list somehow). Without secondary sources, this is also a copyright violation. In order to qualify for fair use, there would need to be critical commentary, of which there is none (Wikipedia policy further dictates this missing critical commentary must be attributable to a reliable, independent sources). People come out with these "Greatest Evar" lists all the time, how is this list notable? --Phirazo 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very valid points. I was never implying that the article be kept (this is, after all, the intellectual property of MTV and Blender Magazine— there is such a list that was aired on TV in 2003, and is reproduced here). I was just troubled by the fact that people were voting "delete" without citing specific reasons (as if simply trying to get in on the discussion). You are the only one here who display any knowledge of our policies. Orane (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that a particular user is the 'only one' who knows policy is belittling to others. It would be best suited to 'congratulate' users on their knowledge of policy on the respective talk page, instead of a public handshake. As the nominator, I'm responding to your comment about my 'failure.' I made it very clear that this did not qualify for a speedy deletion, so I brought it here. I made quite sure that I DID NOT assert an opinion, and went as far as stressing that I am leaving it in the hands of others. Many times when an article doesn't quite fit PROD or Speedy deletion, it is taken to AfD in the spirit of debate and discussion. the_undertow ^talk 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not state that the editor was the only one who knew the policies. I stated that he was the only one who "displayed" knowledge of the policies. There is a difference. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a well-deserved public handshake. Yes, you stated that the article did not qualify for speedy deletion. However, that's not nearly enough. When you are nominating an article for deletion, you are supposed to state why the article should be deleted— i.e. what policies and guidelines does it fail to meet, and how it fails to meet these policies. Otherwise that defeats the entire purpose of the discussion (you can't lead a discussion if you don't know what to discuss). Moreover, people stating "delete per nom" makes the entire process more confusing. As a closing Administrator, I definitely wouldn't delete the article. The least I could do is ask that people restart the discussion process. Orane (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full list is copyvio, show was stupidly done, premise is weak, list is useless. Wasted Time R 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the show was "stupidly done," or weakly premised has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Orane (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio and POV, as stated by Phirazo.--JayJasper 12:48, 14 August 2007 (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 the school distrit mentioned. I'd say merge but what's at the district is what's at the article. Wizardman 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Oaks Elementary School

notability-this article has not seen significant changes for two years since its last review, essentially another "this elementary school does the basic things an elementary school is supposed to do." Wikipedia is not a list of everything Chris 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create and merge into a new article Beaufort County School District. A normal editorial action that could have been taken without coming here. TerriersFan 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the school district since elementary schools are not really notable for individual articles.JForget 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability & WP is not a school directory Corpx 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge please with school district page or city page yuckfoo 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment created Beaufort County School District per TerriersFan, and many editorial actions can be taken, to include nominating for AfD. Don't bite the nominator. :) Chris 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it on over, its a win-win-win situation for us all, readers included. RFerreira 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not meet policy; WP:N and WP:WIN for starters. Why is a school district more notable than an elementary school? It gains no more notability just because a district is composed of a collection of schools. We are running into consistent conflicts due to confusion; a community's self-value is found in getting a mention in Wikipeida? or somehow having an article validates the existence of a individual schools? These are not the purpose of Wikipedia; we are not a collection of lists, we do not serve to validate the identity of any group or individual. Unless there is something notable, each and every mentio of an elementary school, middle school, and high school should be deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
concern My argument would be that as a governing body for units that do have notability, and as institutions in their own right, districts are notable. While I am in total agreement on elementary schools and middle schools, the issue has been repeatedly raised about high schools for years and general agreement seems to be in the direction that high schools merit keeping as articles. Please take that passion and direct it at every video-game character article as well as every TV-show episode! :) Wikipedia does need some major housecleaning, but there's a wide swath to choose from long before you ever get to high schools or districts. Chris 01:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nom as there is now a school district article and I don't want this history to poison that. Chris 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district article that now exists. Burntsauce 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with school district. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Burntsauce. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:55, 16 August 2007 (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 — Caknuck 14:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kreese

Notability and in-universe perspective. This article is about a fictional character from the movie The Karate Kid. Does not meet WP:FICT and portions are Patent Nonsense. Clubjuggle 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would've suggested merging into the article for the movie, but this is just bullshit. "Source: Korean folklore"?--Sethacus 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A look through the previous versions shows this article to be largely a complete fiction. At best it is a good faith but made up biography of a character in a film, at worst it is a hoax. Either way it has no place on Wikipedia, even if it were edited to be a factual account of the Karate Kid character I would still question notability.• nancy • 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article provides a nice basis on a fitcional character whose storyline is largly murky to begin with. It is nice to be able to actually have closure on a character that was vastly underused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.53.19 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All well and good if you want to write fan fiction to flesh out this character's story, but this is not the place to post it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Clubjuggle 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really do not see the problem here. Alot of the info does seem to check out per the movies and if in fact the info is not factually based, what harm has it caused?? Is there really a pressing need for a fictitous character's info be rooted in 100% proof? If this is the case, many entries need to be removed at once.-- KKIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.53.19 (talk • contribs)
I've been waiting for someone to add John Kreese. How come there's a Terry Silver article but people want the Kreese one deleted? If it's a fictional character how can the sources be wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brady102 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can a bio of a fictional character created by someone other than the original author be suitable material for an encyclopaedia? WebHamster 11:20, 15 August 2007 (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Lives

Adding header to incomplete nomination. Seattlenow 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's an orphaned article. The artist for whom the article refers has had his article deleted for lack of notability. If there's no artist it seems redundant to have an album page, especially for an artist who has already been deemed to be non-notable. WebHamster 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable album by nn artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Either hoax or wishful thinking/big dreams. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc!o Mathers. Also delete the related images that have no use outside this article: Image:Marcio Effect 14.jpg, Image:Marcio Effect 588.jpg, and Image:Marcio Mathers - 7 Lives.jpg. Seattlenow 20:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album, non-notable artist. I'm tempted to brand this a hoax. Anyone else notice the similarity of names between this person and Marshall Mathers, aka Eminem? Apparently, they've also worked with many of the same artists.--Sethacus 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and probably original research. Carlosguitar 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first album from the artist, and it's not even released yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball. And the artist's own article was speedy deleted. JIP | Talk 07:44, 12 August 2007 (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanos

Sanos doesn't have enough coverage to pass the notability guideline. Searching for sanos only finds unrelated links, non-3rd party links and trivial or unreliable (blog postings) references to sanos. --Android Mouse 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Minor hits on G News, but I dont think any of them give significant coverage Corpx 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I think that there is barely enough, but it is hard.Zginder 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Not Notable.Harlowraman 03:27, 18 August 2007 (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.--cj | talk 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NewOS

NewOS does not have significant coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Searching for NewOS only finds links that aren't 3rd party or are trivial. The only assertion of notability the article claims (note that it or anything else in the article isn't cited) is that it was created by former Be engineer Travis Geiselbrecht, who himself doesn't appear notable enough for an article. This article isn't objective which is why I also feel it is nothing but self-promotion and an ad. --Android Mouse 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable. There is an article in DDJ[5], written by Geiselbrecht himself, but that's all. Jakew 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability Rackabello 22:16, 11 August 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Viado

Part of a recent flood of articles about small-time Filipino writers and academics. This one is making a notability assertion, however... humblefool ® 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:BIO Rackabello 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources about her are found, which establishes notability Corpx 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because article appears to assert notability by indicating several magazines she's contributed to, but I agree that more references should be added. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:06, 13 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow University Student Television

Notability of subject TorstenGuise 19:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prior AfD resulted in keep/withdrawn nom as a result of re-write. Notability asserted: "first student TV station in the UK" w/ source. Wl219 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with original Afd Discussion and Wl219. TorstenGuise 20:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wl219 CR7 (message me) 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wl219. Jakew 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough. --H irohisat ^Talk 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability seems to be established. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please no explanation why we should not do that yuckfoo 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. GreenJoe 21:41, 13 August 2007 (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 as copy-and-paste duplicate of older existing article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of war apology statements issued by Japanese officials

Duplicate. Copy and paste from an older article "List of war apology statements issued by Japan." --Saintjust 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --H irohisat ^Talk 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article already exists. Zouavman Le Zouave 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Identical to another article. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wait for WP:SNOW to fall Mandsford 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was created as a POV fork where the POV is in the name and not the content.[6] Whether "Japan" (as a state) or "Japanese officials" (individuals in high positions) make these statements is important to many, but there should obviously not be duplicate articles. List of war apology statements issued by Japan has the article history so it should be kept. Whether to rename it is not for AfD. PrimeHunter 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and its a replicate. Brusegadi 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:16, 12 August 2007 (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 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeyore's Tale of the Missing Tail / Pooh, Light up My Life

Eeyore's Tale of the Missing Tail / Pooh, Light up My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Apparently an episode from "My friends Tigger and Pooh" although there's nothing that states that its from that show on the article itself. All it is is a brief plot summary that could probably be merged with the main page if necessary. There's very little other information and only one category. CyberGhostface 18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually merge if it can. However, it doesn't need to be a separate article. --H irohisat ^Talk 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references means that it could be a hoax. Unless proven otherwise, I keep my view on the matter. Brusegadi 02:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a hoax, so that shouldn't be your argument for deletion. It just doesn't satisfy notability guidelines.--CyberGhostface 02:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this episode? Corpx 06:30, 12 August 2007 (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 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sunatori

Not notable Wtshymanski 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally unverifiable. The article weakly asserts notability due to the invention of a pen, which does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO. I was only able to find a single news article referring to Sunatori. Jakew 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Instinct tells me to keep but Jakew makes good points. You changed my mind...Brusegadi 02:49, 12 August 2007 (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 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Factory Records

Non-notable label that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --H irohisat ^Talk 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not asserted. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Harlowraman 01:02, 12 August 2007 (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 and salt. Repost of same nonsense. -- RHaworth 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur behavior

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of previously speedied nonsense. Fabrictramp 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, plus the fact that this would already be included in more specific detail in other dinosaur articles. Unecessary article. Lra drama 17:51, 11 August 2007 (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07

Wikipedia is not a directory or dictonary. The page is fancruft also. Davnel03 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:

There's lots more than just these, so expect me to add some more.

Strong keep - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangers F.C. season 2005-06. Nom doesn't make sense - this is not the type of info that would be found in a directory or dictionary. There is a strong precident for sports team-by-season articles, there are even six of them listed on WP:GA. See also Category:National Basketball Association seasons by team, Category:Sports history of the United States by team and all of their sub-categories. I don't think that there is any difference in notability between an American football team's season and a soccer team's season, as long as they play in a professional league. WP:5 states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of [...] almanacs., and as I've said in previous AfDs, this this very much the type of thing that would be found in an almanac. These articles are also completely and easily verifiable. Gasheadsteve 18:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Gasheadsteve. I don't see which of the four parts of Wikipedia is not a directory these articles fall into. I think this type of article would appear in a sports almanac or yearbook, and therefore should be included under "Wikipedia is not..." rule number 1, paper. Gentgeen 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close This needs to be argued at the portal level, not here. Every sports team has a season article. See Category:2007 in sports for the thousands of articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - comparing these pages to a dictionary or fancruft as in the nomination is simply incorrect. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - About the reasons for deletion: this article is not even close to a dictionary entry; this article is not a directory entry, please read carefully the 4 types of directory entries. Reason for keep: this article is a sport almanac entry, what is part of Wikipedia.--ClaudioMB 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable, sourceable, notable content. I dislike some of them, especially those ones composed just by the squad and the list of results for that season, but deleting them all is a wrong idea. --Angelo 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Gasheadsteve. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as for reasons for the rest of the posters. They're certainly not fancruft. My only objection is the West Ham United F.C. ones, which are lacking in quality and need improving. The rest are proper Sport almanac entries. Da-rb 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Valuable reference material of very wide interest. Abberley2 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Angelo. I dislike some of these articles too. In fact, I tried to get a fair few of them deleted a while back. However, I believe they can be of use if done well, i.e. composed of a prose account of the season, not just a bunch of statistics, as I am attempting to do with Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07, albeit slowly. - PeeJay 01:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per several of the arguments notably Angelo, ClaudioMB and Richard Arthur Norton.JForget 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per several arguments such as Angelo and Gasheadsteve. They all contain useful material, even though some need improvement. - Boy1jhn 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close if you want to deal with whether or not sports teams should have their individual seasons in an article, I suggest a policy-level discussion over an article level one. I also recommended articulating your position in a more effective manner than simply saying Wikipedia is not something or another or using the term cruft. FrozenPurpleCube 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did discuss at a lower level. Davnel03 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you should go to a higher-level, such as the Village pump. Or an RFC. The discussion there involved what looks about 5 people. Since this is a subject that'll extend through hundreds of potential pages from Baseball to well, a lot of others. FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry, I never knew there were pages like this for baaseball and other sports. Davnel03 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing, even if there weren't pages (and some sports and teams are more developed than others), this is logically an issue that applies to all of them, thus I believe it would have been appropriate for you to look for them and see what's going on. Now if your issue were with the team itself (I nominated a season article for a college sports team a few months ago), that'd be particular, but it seems to me your argument was more general in nature. Thus my suggestion to bring this up in a wider forum. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm in favor of just deleting the Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07 and Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 articles. Why? Because the Manchester United 1999-present article has a season by season analysis. I'm not sure about the others. --Tocino 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure that's a good way to go about things, as there's no way to uniformly standardize articles if done that way. It might be better to move some of the content from that article into year-by-year coverage of the Manchester United. Otherwise we might have arguments over appropriate breaks for history of sports teams. At the least though, since some of the content isn't duplicative, I'd at least say merge. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepWikiGull 08:15, 14 August 2007 (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 speedied android 79 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of kindergartens in Japan

Unneeded and potentially huge list Kww 17:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks terrible in its present state & would do better as a category. Articles that are just lists are frowned upon anyway. See here. Lra drama 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom Reginmund 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nom. Not only a list, but a list with very few entries of which even fewer will meet the notability criteria. Poeloq
Delete - per nom. Listcruft, nothing more. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'll be too long. --H irohisat ^Talk 19:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a good idea. Could not be a category because kindergartens shouldn't have their own articles. Punkmorten 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One kindergarten on the list so far, no need to add any others Mandsford 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - It's listcruft. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think one would be hard pressed to find a valid reason to create an entire list of kindergartens, from any country. Truly famous, notable people rarely have any mention of where they went to kindergarten, unless it is a child prodigy. While kindergartens serve a most vital function, there is no reason to make an article about each and every school, regardless of location. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a collection of external links. Useight 22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Of all public institutions, kindergartens surely must be the least notable on an individual basis. Even if some of them have had celebrities on their roll, said celebrities are unlikely to have been engaged in any notable activities while there. Anyway, this article is pure listcruft, all but impossible to maintain given the size of Japan. --Targeman 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:15, 12 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding Light opening sequence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Guiding Light opening sequence (2nd nomination)

Delete - as with Another World opening sequence and closing credits, the notability of the program does not confer notability on every aspect of the show. There are no reliable sources attesting that this topic is notable. Otto4711 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first AFD under a different article name. Otto4711 17:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found discussing the Guiding Light opening sequence. The fan site linked to under external links isn't sufficient. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there are reliable secondary sources for the opening sequence, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Jay32183 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this opening sequence Corpx 06:29, 12 August 2007 (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 by User:Android79, short article with no context.

Kappa 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in Japan

Potentially huge, but inherently inappropriate list Kww 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft waiting to happen. Blueboy 96 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially huge, yes, but the list consists of the St. George Academy in Nagoya, which, I presume, is not the only elementary school in Japan. The idea seems to be that others would add to the list. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, of course, but not all journeys are worth making. Mandsford 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of random lists Rackabello 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This article is sure get a bigger snow cap than Mount Fuji. --Targeman 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:15, 12 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herman F. Zimmerman

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Prod removed by editor saying he'd be back in 24 hours to work on the article; that was almost two weeks ago. Otto4711 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The editor seems to be working on other articles, and doesn't seem to be interested in this anymore. However, Google hits counts over 900,000, and also has a article on the Star Trek wiki. That may not matter here, but weak keep for now. --H irohisat ^Talk 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Easily fulfills WP:BIO: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Zimmerman meets that as a lead production designer for numerous Star Trek tv series and movies. Article needs expansion, but being a stub isn't a reason to delete.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Zimmerman or his work specifically been "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? Lots of people work on series, even influential series, but that in and of itself doesn't meet notability guidelines. Otto4711 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well quoted, profiled, and interviewed in official Star Trek websites and magazines. FYI, Memory Alpha has this to say: [7]. Wl219 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability requires independent resources. Official Star Trek websites and magazines are not independent. Otto4711 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Manticore's comment below. I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Independent sources are used to weed out conflict of interest, peacocking, spam, and blatant advertising, none of which applies when using material from a Star Trek magazine in an article about a technical production person. The magazine is still independent of the subject which is the key here. It's not like we're sourcing from a fanzine Zimmerman started himself. You wouldn't suggest we exclude from, say, Tom Brokaw all sources from NBC because he worked for them? Wl219 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Four Emmy nominations[8] would seem to suggest that he's notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also was a winner at the Art Directors Guild Awards 1996. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [9] is an interview on the BBC. Also a tribute to him on the movie DVDs. Which are independent of him, if not independent of Trek. And in this case, I think SPS are viable, given the nature of the franchise. But really, a little discretion in nominations would be appropriate here. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 12 August 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ele

Tagged for speedy deletion but some notability is asserted. Blogger and podcaster. Am also submitting for deletion the related article Art for Spastics about the podcast in question. History suggests a conflict of interest and the tone of the article is fairly promotional. No third-party references provided. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ with a very narrow scope of notability (if any). I do not think WP should become a directory of local radio hosts/politicians Corpx 06:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Zginder 23:20, 17 August 2007 (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. The article as it stands now has only the "mainstream media attention" it has gotten -- a large Norway newspaper and a blog -- and the same information already available in the Creation Museum article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(And redirect to This Week In Science). Sorry about that. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn museum

Tagged as Speedy, I think it's borderline. Bringing here. humblefool® 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged it as speedy. There are no independent reliable third party sources mentioning this website - google only has a list of blogs and chat rooms. And there aren't even that many of them. The page has potential for notability, however, it has yet to even reach the stage of internet cultism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie), let alone third party reliable sources. The Evil Spartan 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Unfortunately I can't support a keep on this one because of lack of notability. But it's an excellent idea for a tongue-in-cheek museum! — RJH (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Creation Museum. I found one source[10], but it really isn't enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, that "news story" links back to the main website. That's not an independent link at all. And, for that matter, why would we want to include a non-notable website in the criticism section of creation museum? The Evil Spartan 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A real museum, funded with $27,000,000; occupying 60,000 sq.ft. and only recently opened ("Grand opening" article is dated August 9, which was Thursday), not much more recent than the May opening of the Creation Museum. As such, I think it's too early to start counting Ghits and the like for "notability". Frankly, I think that opponents of both the "Creation Museum" and the "Unicorn Museum" (and I'm referring to protestors, not to anyone who is voting on this article) forget the old American adage, "It's a free country." Bravo to both museums! Mandsford 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The first paragraph comes right out and says "The Unicorn Museum is a parody website based on the Creation Museum, a $27 million museum in the United States designed to promote young Earth creationism." The 27 million dollars refers to the Creation museum. Sheesh. (And even if it was, we could delete it as a hoax, as there's not a single reliable source verifying this claim). The Evil Spartan 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Thank you to Spartan. I'm not too proud to leave up evidence of my stupidity ~~with a line run through it~~ . Looking back on it, I guess that would have been pretty quick construction.
Question Hi all - I'm part of the team that built the Unicorn Museum parody website. I'm not familiar with proper posting practices on Wikipedia, but we'd like to keep this page in the system and will make any changes you suggest to make this happen. With regards to the notability of the site, the site has been live for a little over a week and we've already received mentions in several prominent science blogs plus have elicited commentary from Creation Museum founder Ken Ham. Here are some of the third-party sites currently mentioning the Unicorn Museum:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/but_unicorns_are_real.php

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/09/godtm/

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/08/11/breaking-records-at-the-creation-museum-2/

http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=644

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/unicorn-museum.html

http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/08/09/unicorn-museum-grand-opening

http://reddit.com/info/2d30z/comments

Can these be used as references to help demonstrate the notability of the Unicorn Museum website? Let me know and I'll make any necessary changes. Thanks User:TWIS 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most I think we could help would be for you to take a look at WP:WEB. It you can show the site passes these criteria, it should be worth a keep. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just got a mention in Dagbladet this morning (one of Norway's largest newspapers) and have been covered by Pharyngula (listed by the science journal Nature as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist ^[1])User:TWIS 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Additional images

Delete per lack of notability. Blogs/forums etc do not qualify as reliable sources Corpx 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Creation Museum per Clarityfiend. Having said that however... it could likely change in the future due to how recent this site is. Mathmo ^Talk 08:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to This Week in Science. The Unicorn museum website does not seem to be notable in and of itself, but as an initiative of the This Week in Science program, it's an item worth including in the article about the program. It's already nicely documented in Creation Museum, which would make a confusing destination for the redirect.--orlady 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx Harlowraman 03:25, 18 August 2007 (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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn with no votes. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lender's Bagels

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lender's Bagels

Article on non-notable company created by sockpuppet of banned user--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn. My apologies. Was mistaken as to editing history. --Mantanmoreland 19:01, 10 August 2007 (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 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novocastrian Philosophers' Club

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Novocastrian Philosophers' Club

This club only barely makes an assertion of notability when it says "The Club has been accused of being shrouded in myth and noteriety since its establishment.(sic)"

This sounds like a rather small club, the only source given does not mention the club. The group is mentioned on directory sites and a few other smaller references. I don't think this passes our notability standards. This had a CSD tag that I removed. Until (1 == 2) 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I question whether this is a real club as this is impossible to verify. The only references to the subject that I find are to a theatrical event being held at the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle. I cannot find the Novocastrian Philosophers' Press and hence no research publications. I cannot find a register of philosophical societies. Looking at this explanation, it seems clear that it is indeed a theatrical event and not an actual club. This article is either a hoax based on the theatrical event or the club is so not notable that it doesn't warrant a summary of it in the blurb for the event nor in the history of the Lit & Phil Soc.[11]. Either way, delete. --Malcolmxl5 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Hiberniantears 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As of now, the article shows no proof of sufficient notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is indeed clear that this is a performance at the The Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle Upon Tyne, which you note has an article. I have corrected the redlink in the article we are discussing. See "The Performance" link in the url in the article. Click on "Back to The Lit & Phil" to find out about the proper organisation. This article should be merged into The Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle Upon Tyne although it needs rewriting in the process to make it clear it is a theatrical performance not a real club. If nobody wants to do that rewriting, just delete. --Bduke 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the article does make some attempts at claims to notability such as "The Club publishes research through the Novocastrian Philosophers' Press". But I haven't put any work into trying to find sources, so I won't vote either for deletion or keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 08:05, 12 August 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under a Blood Red Sky (novel)

Self-published novel. No apparent press or other indication of notability. Prod tag removed with comments indicating the novel is notable for its predictive properties, but links provided as verification do not mention the novel, making this original research. Recommend deletion. SiobhanHansa 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self published Non-Notable. Shoessss | Chat 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rationale : 1) book was launched at and remains on sale at a reputable chain of bookstores in the author's home territory; 2) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a national newspaper in Hong Kong; 3) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a national radio station in Hong Kong; 4) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a regional newspaper in UK; 5) the book is aknowledged as potentially leading to a copycat hoax incident in New Zealand; 6) the book has been reviewed/commented on by former UK government minister; 7) the assumption that self-published = not notable is invalid. Links to all these items are included on the revised article. The above satisfies the criteria for regional notability. NB I am the author of the article.Drpig39 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry, of all the references posted for this novel only three link and mention the author. In addition, the one link, the South China Morning Post, only has a circulation of 104,000! The other newspaper Grimsby Telegraph as you noted is only a regional newspaper, thus making only one reference left. Finally, the book being contributed to as the idea for a real terrorist plot in New Zealand is ridicules. Still not Notable. Sorry. Shoessss | Chat 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. Several of the references provided are for live radio broadcasts, which cannot be linked to for obvious reasons. That does not mean they were not notable events, being as they were on the national broadcast channel in Hong Kong during prime time current affairs shows. Re: circulation of SCMP as 'only' 104,000. The total population of Hong Kong is less than 7 million, of whom 95% are ethnic Chinese. Of the 350,000 non-ethnic Chinese, most are non-native English speakers (Filipino, Indonesian, Thai, Nepalese). Thus, SCMP is read by the majority native English-speaking population of Hong Kong. You cannot possibly know for certain that the book could not have contibuted to the hoax plot in New Zealand. It is more reasonable to assume that as the book was available from internet retailers prior to the event and had been recently publicised in the region (Asia-Pacific)(NB Hong Kong has a large Australian/New Zealand ex-patriate community) that it could have been the source - which is all that I assert. Note that for inclusion in Wiki - global renown or notability is not required. Merely regional - again, which is all that I claim. If appearing in national media (newspaper / radio) and being commented on by a former UK government minister are not enough to satisfy notability - please indicate your minimum acceptable criteria. Surely notablility in this context means being supported by publicly available evidence, which has been provided. You should not let bias against self-published books blind you to other evidence. As the Wiki entry on self-publishing shows, there are many reasons authors opt to self-publish. As the list of self-published works in that article indicates, they are not all without merit. Thanks.Drpig39 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The book has also been discussed in the context of the origin of the UK 2007 FMD outbreak.[12] The author was interviewed and stated clearly his views on the likely cause of the outbreak (i.e. accidental not deliberate). The notability of the book has therefore been clearly established.Drpig39 05:26, 17 August 2007 (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Kids

This article, which amazingly is nearly three years old, refers to a single mention of a term in one line of a Red Hot Chili Peppers song. Seems mostly to be supposition about what the term means and its context in the song, I haven't managed to find any verification of its contents. Canley 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism with little to no currency. — BillC ^talk 12:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, dictionary definition, unsourced and a bit of original research thrown in! --Malcolmxl5 15:47, 11 August 2007 (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 - Nabla 11:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spriters Resource

Non-notable website that has nothing to assert any possibility of improvement. Its claimed references in a magazine are nothing more than small credits at the bottom of a page that used sprites, which is nothing short of trivial. TTN 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why delete it? It might as well be here for its popularity and since there's so many articles on Wikipedia, having a page like this isn't hurting it at all. Even if the article shouldn't be here, what are the chances of it getting noticed by many people anyway? I say it should stay the way it is.
Comment. Well, it certainly isn't non-notable, but it isn't notable either. The magazine credited them for using the sprites, which in itself might be trivia, but look at it in a different light. The site is noticed and known by Nintendo. It is respected enough to be used in the magazine. Surely it doesn't constitute a gigantic article, but a reference is a reference.

The Spriter's resource has become something of an internet thing, much like 4 chan. Go to most, if not any low scale game making or developement forum or site and you will clearly see many things linked to TSR. Go look at Nintendo's official forum, game makers official forums, and gamespot. All three I have found numorous links to TSR, and while online forums are not considered sources, they can be used to show signifigance. Running a google check will show several pages of references to the site.

Pixeltendo on the other hand, has been on TV! Or rather, it will be. It is making an appearence in the show, Untitled on the BBC3. The signifigance of the site is large in an internet world, and some well known web comics (and even some Wikipedia articles mind you) have used things from TSR. The article itself can be cleaned up, and made more formal.

Or would it be acceptable to redirect [{Spriters Resource]] to Spriting, where it is listed as a "external link"?Balladofwindfishes 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.tSR has also had it fair share of notice from professional development groups. The lead animator of BioWare (Creators of many large scale games) has said on many occasions that he uses the site for references and inspiration for animation styles and such like. It cannot be denied that tSR has had a large impact on the spriting community as well as the gaming world in a whole. Not only that, but the artistic community, and even marketing. On several occasions I have seen sprites used as advertisement in small independent retailers, and when asked, mentioned tSR. Giptum 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love TSR, I feel it is not noteworthy enough to warrant an article. I have seen many more popular and important websites have their pages pulled, so I don't see why this site would be any different. The S 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to give notability to this site. I came up empty Corpx 06:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I support the deletion of this article. Wikipedia is something which a grade 6 kid would look at for information for his school project, or where someone needs reference material for a survey or experiment, or something out of plain curiosity. There is no actual practical value of the knowledge of a pixel art archive on wikipedia, the tSR article only had been created solely for the purpose to flex its muscles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.142.55 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 August 2007
- Comment. Last year there was 4 Business Studies essays based on the independence of tSR, and the way that it is maintained and run privately and through a community. This is information is only found through the fact that I received 4 emails from teachers, checking on the details given of the business. I believe that if there are people who can hand in information on the business for school work that gives them a qualification, I think it deserves a Wikipedia page. Giptum 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One could argue that Wikipedia's deleting an article without a good reason is flexing their muscles as well.75.64.175.14 17:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although not notable enough for it's own article, could a section in Spriting be acceptable, discussing sprite sites in general, with references to TSR, and the various other well known sites. Balladofwindfishes 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the spriting article, and mention it as an external link. Though it is useful, it's not famous enough to merit its own article. Well, unless you find more sources, that is. I'm not opposed to an article, but by Wikipedia standards it's not notable enough.--_ZXCVBNM 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the page! Heck, many websites have Wikipedia pages!!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmasology

Contested prods. Non notable terms, and the wording of both articles is like an advertisement. I removed a link to iTunes from Christmasology -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that these album titles are "Trademarked" amuses me greatly. Delete both, and someone should take a good, hard look at Whitney Wolanin at the same time. The whole thing looks like blatant self-promotion. humblefool ® 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NEO - per lack of independent sources talking about these terms Corpx 06:26, 12 August 2007 (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 (band was speedied 10 days ago). Pascal.Tesson 23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Be Fucked with

PROD was contested without any rationale, concern was "album by (apparently) non-notable band". I still stand by this, as the band who wrote the album have no Wikipedia article. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 11:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poss speedy, since the lack of the band's article means there is no claim to notability. — BillC ^talk 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an obscure hip-hop album by a probably non-notable group, and this seems to be their only release.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-band Rackabello 22:21, 11 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLab GNU/Linux

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/OpenLab GNU/Linux

Non-notable super-secret-SCOX-IP-free Linux distro, no evidence of third party coverage. MER-C 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure you could claim it has no third-party coverage. There's already two in the article itself [13] [14]. --Android Mouse 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability.--Chealer 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisting - The second linked text shown by Android Mouse reads «there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Linux operating system distributions already available» but also that «[OpenLab is] installed in hundreds of school and community computer labs across Africa.». Just another distribution? Or one worthy of an article? - Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. This made me doubt about my recommendation, but I could find a few reasons why that figure may not make OpenLab "that notable":

It's unsourced and could be inexact.
African schools have fewer computers. Being on 5 computers per school in 200 schools is only 1000 installs.
It was true when the article was written, but it's not anymore. OpenLab seems to be dying.
The vendor provided incentive to use OpenLab, hence the userbase would be particularly fragile.

Since the full name ("openlab GNU/linux" -wikipedia) only gets 92 Google hits, I'm standing by my Delete.--Chealer 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:28, 17 August 2007 (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 White House. Some content has already been merged, it seems. --- RockMFR 05:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

202-456-1414

This information is too trivial and not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. T Rex | talk 09:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is trivial/non notable as well.:

Delete as Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge into White House. Marginally useful information if anybody wants to call. Wl219 11:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge - non encyclopedic information. WP:NOT#DIR. KTC 12:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the White House phone number, it's actually, one of the most recognizable; but like "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" it's not the basis for a stand alone article. Nothing to merge, really. I didn't know about 456-1111, which is kind of an answering machine for the president, but same comment. I'm surprised that there isn't an article about the official telephone numbers for places like the White House, 10 Downing Street, etc. Please note that you cannot reach President Bush directly by calling 456-1414, although you can attempt to get the switchboard to put you through. You might try 202-334-4775 however. Mandsford 14:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House. A search of Google News should several stories in which there was much more than a directory listing, talking about the number and the volunteers and operators who field thousands of calls. Over the decades it has been a common rhetorical device for newspaper editorial writers around the world to urge their readers to call the number about issues of war or the economy. Secretary of State famously urger Israel to call the number in 1990. One editorial criticized Reagan for believing that calls supporting his policies reflected the public's views. It is at least as deserving of a paragraph in the White House article as the existing section on the White House web site. Perhaps the section there could be "White House switchboard." 71.57.125.95 15:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree. I remember a Daily Show interview where Jon Stewart asked Tom Brokaw if he had the phone number for the White House, and Brokaw replied with 202-456-1414 (and Jon wrote it down eagerly...) Wl219 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not 555-1212 Rackabello 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A somewhat notable phone number, but not enough for its own article. A sentence or two in White House would probably suffice, and wouldn't burden that article greatly. --Phirazo 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to White House. No notability established for this number Corpx 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the google news accounts. "white House Switchboard" would seem a better title, as suggested by the anon. DGG (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that we create the White House switchboard article and then redirect these two articles to the new one? If the article is created, then I would definitely change my !vote above. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The White House. Worth mentioning but not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already covered in White House, so redirect this article to White House. There's nothing to merge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White House. 132.205.44.5 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the White House article. This is not a telephone number I am familiar with, but it seems that the number is notable enough that some people may search for information about it. Yamaguchi先生 04:14, 17 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Season

Non-notable band. fails WP:ATT for attribution, has weak sources and valid CSDa7 Leonardobonanni 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Band Harlowraman 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails WP:Band No-notable band. Almost no Google results. No website yet, only domain linking to myspace profile. Soundscan reference links to bands website, not soundscan. Willscripps 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Band no assertion of importance and I agree with Willscripps assessment of the links. Karstdiver ^{(talk · contribs)}, 05:05, 14 August 2007 (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 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PilotLinux

Non-notable Linux distribution, no evidence of third party coverage. At least it's free of SCOX proprietary IP. MER-C 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability.--Chealer 01:41, 15 August 2007 (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 Ryan Serrant, Cuss, Crossley, Smith & Darville, Nomination withdrawn for Carl Serrant & Grant. — Caknuck 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Serrant

Player has made no fully professional appearances therefore doesn't qualify for an article as per the notability requirements on the Football WikiProject

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Chappy ^T_C 08:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Carl Serrant (has played for Newcastle!) and Gareth Grant; both have played professionally. Mattythewhite 08:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I didn't check these players on soccerbase, i was just looking at their stats on wikipedia, I've checked the rest and removed Carl Serrant and Gareth Grant from this AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chappy84 (talk • contribs) 08:54, August 11, 2007

Delete Ryan Serrant, Paul Cuss, Ryan Crossley, Nick Smith, Liam Darville. Keep Carl Serrant (100+ appearances in fully professional leagues) and Gareth Grant (30 appearances in fully professional leagues). --Malcolmxl5 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malcolmxl5. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nick Smith; Delete the rest. Davnel03 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why keep Smith? He's never played in the Football League, he may have been on the books of an FL team but he was released without ever playing, which also applies to two of the others, who you say should be deleted??!?! ChrisTheDude 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smith, yeah you made your point. Davnel03 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability requirements. Tyrenius 03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as not having played in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 12:07, 16 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Carrea

Seems completely non-notable. humblefool® 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject itself seems non notable and the article fails to assert any kind of notability. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 08:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio from here. — BillC ^talk 12:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of notability and appears an unremarkable person. CSD A7? --Malcolmxl5 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems pretty non-notable to me. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I do not see how it is notable. Brusegadi 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of appearances on multiple television shows, listing on Internet Movie Database, etc. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:05, 13 August 2007 (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 wasspeedy closed Luna Santin (talk · contribs) suggestion was in response to the article being WP:CSD#G11 spam. This article has been the subject of an on going edit war 4 AfD nominations and at least 6 CSD tags inside 10 days. It has also been subject to 4 other AFD nominations prior to this round of edit warring. Its also difficult to AGF the nomination by an editor new to this page today (11 Aug). Gnan garra 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia

AfDs for this article:

Despite weeks to change the text no attempt has been made to clean up the advertising. This is being taken to AFD as recommended by Luna Santin. Fundie Busters 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correction - this is actually the eighth AFD for this article. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Bad faith nom by a single purpose account. The article may have problems, but abuse of process isn't the way to solve them. --Bongwarrior 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree and you MUST assume good faith. An administrator recommended taking this to AFD. Fundie Busters 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith "The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF." Each time you nominate the article for a spurious AfD, you lose more and more credibility, and the chance of the article actually being deleted becomes less and less. You are turning the Fundie Railpage Kiddies into a bunch of people who are being picked on by a bully. Speedy Close, and permanently block the nominator, and the next sockpuppet he uses, and the one after that, and the one after that, etc.Johnmc 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Refer to the bottom part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The_Null_Devicefor more sockpuppets that this editor has used in the past.Johnmc 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable — 124.190.97.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'd just like to note that not only is this IP address an SPA, but it recently edit-warring by invalidly adding a speedy deletion page to this page. --Haemo 07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Though most of the previous AfDs were closed early as bad faith nominations, making the number of discussions a bit misleading, this nomination has been made by yet another single-purpose account. If it is so pertinent that an administrator recommended taking this to AfD, then that admin is more than welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Maxa megalon 2000 07:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - single-issue SPA account undermines the credibility of the nomination. All previous nominations have been seriously compromised by SPA's and votestacking; yet, they have all been closed as keep. Multiple sources on the page demonstrate notability. We do not need to go through this again. --Haemo 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close And please stop wasting our time. It seems this page is up for deletion every few days. Recurring dreams 07:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oops, sorry. I wasn't aware of the prior AfD history, when I made that suggestion. I only saw a speedy nomination that didn't seem to meet the criteria, and figured a prod would be contested in a matter of minutes, so declined and suggested AfD as the standard forum of appeal. No particular opinion, beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is ridiculous. Nick mallory 08:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - 1st Afd (May 06) withdrew on Stub page. 2nd Afd (Feb 07) Keep. 3rd Afd (July 07) closed as content dispute. 4th - 7th Afd closed as bad faith nom. KTC 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there were a non-bad faith nomination by a non-SPA, then there's probably room for a discussion since it has actually been a while since a valid AfD. However that is not the case as it stand. KTC 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and keep Oh please, this is getting ridiculous! --Canley 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This nomination should be let to run its course. I suspect in the second nomination for deletion there was voting fraud. The later part of the current article is borderline advertising (Digital River) see hosting services [15] and a vanity write up with no proper referencing of individuals involved.

If weak deleted there should be some mention in the article that Railpage is a commercial venture. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [16]. I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [17]. To this date they have not.

Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [18] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [19] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[20]. If a weak delete is supported the box in the top right hand corner should be edited as follows.[21]

Tezza1 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Tezza, an AfD is not the place for a content dispute ("Commercial or non-commercial?"). If you include discussions like that here, you may very well cause the debate to be closed. There is one place for that debate,and that is in the Railpage Talk page.Johnmc 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, so I can't argue for a weak delete? I still think the current nomination should run it's course.Tezza1 09:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly argue for a weak delete, as you did in your first sentence. It's just that arguing over content (as you did in your second half) has no real bearing on the debate. The Railpage article is not going to be deleted over whether or not Railpage Australia is a commercial or non-commercial organization. And I don't think it should run it's course, simply because it is by the same person (the aus.rail "Nomen Nescio/George Orwell/Anonymous Sender" character) who has made the last 5 nominations, and that any Railpage article AfD made by him is tainted, and should be nipped in the bud, pronto. If you wish a *proper* AfD, then wait a respectable period of time (say a month or two), and nominate it yourself. Johnmc 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Whatever the original nominators intentions (i suspect his/her intentions could be the opposite to what people immediately think) I still think this nomination should be run till end,Tezza1 09:18, 11 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation Magazine

A clear case of Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This is a non-notable, virtually anonymous website with a Wikipedia entry seems to be nothing more than an advertisement the site. GHcool 06:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nick mallory 06:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide reliable source to its notability. -- KTC 06:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this magazine. It also fails notability criteria as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:03, 11 August 2007 (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 early closure and delete—clear example of WP:SNOW. — Deckill er 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clark

Delete article about a single contestant on Who Wants to Be a Superhero? for lack of notability. Almost none of the other contestants have their own articles. Wryspy 05:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable contestant who was eliminated first episode. Is not notable outside of show. Tinkleheimer 05:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE Highly unlikely any outside references aside from mentions of her participation in the show, and elimination after premier, could be found. On the odd chance she goes on to become notable, the article can then be recreated. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - An appearance on a reality show != historic notability Corpx 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a contestant on a reality show, and was eliminated in the first episode. It was argued on the talk page that she could possibly return in a future episode of the show (which is still on the air) and do something notable, but for the moment I don't believe there is a reason to keep the article about her.—Mears man 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO so speedy delete.-Gilliam
Delete. Non-notable. --DrBat 19:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, agree that this could also be speedy deleted. Burntsauce 16:57, 14 August 2007 (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 05:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSM-03 Gogg

No reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 05:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Granted, I'm not familiar with this Anima thing, but this seems to be an article about a fictional company, that created a fictional armor suit, for a fictional cartoon character? A Google of the Zeonic Company comes up with nothing (aside from WP). A Google for MS-06M Zaku comes up with some hits, as does MSM-03 Gogg. (about 800 each, give or take) However, they all seem to be not reliable sources, (is Ebay a reliable source? *grin*). Again, I don't know about the whole cartoon Japanese industry, but it seems to me that any relevant information contained in the article, could certainly easily be put into this Mobile Suit Gundam article? ^Ariel♥Gold 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A fictional company? Like Rossum's Universal Robots, Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, Tyrell Corporation, Acme Corporation, etc? That's not grounds for deletion. OTOH, this is about a fictional object, like Light Saber or Shuttlecraft (Star Trek). Which also isn't grounds for deletion. The key is notability, which is harder to establish for something where the majority of sources are not in English. It does definitely need sources. I recommend Merge into "Universal Century mobile suits". Edward321 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to establish notability. Looks to me like this belongs in a specialized wiki somewhere Corpx 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To satisfy WP:N, there would have to be multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of it. In this caase there is only one ref, and it appears to be a fan website, which does not satisfy WP:RS. 71.57.125.95 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to a list of Zeon mobile suits or something like that (I think one exists but I can't find it right now). The stats (for this and other mobile suits) could be incorporated as a wikitable in said List article. Though this is one of the few Gundam entities that does have some real world significance, most sources are not in English and I don't have access to the Japanese sources. A stand-alone article is not suitable with the article as written. A redirect is preferable to outright deletion so that a new article would not be created by new editors who might wonder why there is no treatment at all of this. --Polaron | Talk 20:17, 13 August 2007 (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 no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

The original AfD for this article proved very controversial. Stated briefly, many members of the Wikipedia Mathematics community felt deprived of the opportunity to share their views and expertise in the discussion. DRV determined that a relisting was in order to satisfy those concerns. Deletion is on the table here (as many feel the article violates WP:NOT), as are creative solutions (merging, etc.) that might make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. - the article was extensively rewritten during the discussion below, and many of the comments refer to earlier versions of the article, and not the current version. Please bear this in mind when reading through the comments. Carcharoth 12:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with any "It appeared here, and here, and here, and here, and..." articles. Those are indiscriminate collections of trivia, not encyclopedia articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relisting this is a joke and an abuse of DRV (not by Xoloz). Michael Hardy didn't like the fact that this was deleted properly by consensus so he created a fuss and alerted people he knew would support him. The whole thing stinks. Ironically, the article doesn't even deserve all this attention, it's the standard IPC list of "spot the phrase" in TV, films, songs, etc. WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. (Insert funny joke here comparing the Infinite monkey theorem to the way these types of articles are put together). Crazysuit 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement above is dishonest and abusive. It does not look like a good-faith attempt to participate in this discussion. Michael Hardy 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alerted people I knew would support [me]"?? Bullshit. "Crazysuit", if you're here to pick fights, you don't belong here and will get banned. Michael Hardy 04:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, trivial list of trivials. -- KTC 04:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A significant number of articles in Wikipedia are lists of trivia. Case to the point:Battle of Stalingrad in the media.(Igny 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - And a lot of those trvial lists ought to be deleted too. KTC 05:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stalingrad in the media is not a list of trivia. That list includes extremely notable examples, and is informative and educational. It is a good resource for anyone wanting to read about the battle, or watch films or documentaries on the battle. I suspect the video and board games trigger the warning signals, but if those can be verified, they shouldn't be ghettoized. Please don't think 'delete' before considering options such as: (a) improving the article; (b) trimming the article; (c) merging the content back to the main article. Delete should only be considered after these options have been tried. Carcharoth 10:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill pop culture article with no explanation of its actual significance to pop culture. The long and painful process to relist this didn't produce any new material to solve this issue. Someguy1221 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unimportant, irrelevant trivia. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. --Eyrian 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you please clarify? irrelevant to what? unimportant for whom?(Igny 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep (1) This mathematical proposition is widely known primarily because of its transmission in popular culture rather than because of its transmission in the classroom. (2) It aids the reader whose knowledge of the matter is vague in the understanding of allusions in literature. (3) The story about it published in The New Yorker in 1940, listed in this article, was found worthy of inclusion in the four-volume World of Mathematics, generally held in high regard. If in its present form it is not good enough, it can be edited. Michael Hardy 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel reluctant to pontificate on articles to which I have no intention to contribute. However, I don't agree that all items in the article are trivia and hence should be deleted. For instance, the great writer Borges apparently has a short story in which this is a central plot element. I think this is such a strong connection that it transcends the trivia category. I hope that people will read the whole article before concluding that it's all trivia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC); edited slightly 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See comments by Quale below. The article as it stand is a trivial list, and or a list of trivals. If the subject on popular culture is significant, then there should be an article written in prose citing reliable sources on why its been significant. In the case of example such as Borges that you mentioned, the content should rightly go into the The Library of Babel article, because that's where it is significant, with a link to Infinite monkey theorem where a reader can find out more on the topic if wished. A summary on significant or noted appearance on popular culture can also appear in a section on the Infinite monkey theorem article itself. The list however, is just a list of trivial. -- KTC 05:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not about the article as it stands. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. It should be about the article as it could be, and as it is at the end of the AfD. Carcharoth 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first AFD result was arrived at correctly. The page can and should be edited—anything important or non-trivial on it should be edited into the main article and this page should be deleted. In particular, mention of a New Yorker story that was reprinted by Newman should go in the main article, not ghettoized in a "... in popular culture" page. These "in popular articles" are most often a bad idea and non-encyclopedic unless the the effect or significance of the subject on popular culture has been studied and has WP:RS sources. Sure, the infinite monkey theorem has appeared in pop culture a lot. What is needed are WP:RS reliable sources that examine what these mentions tell us about pop culture or the theorem. This requires secondary sources, not primary sources. The Foxtrot comic strip is a reference to the fact that the theorem was used in that strip, but that primary source alone doesn't make an article unless a reference can be found that describes the significance of the theorem's appearance in a comic strip. Quale 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose merging these trivia into the main articles. An example. Battle of Stalingrad in the media was part of Battle of Stalingrad for quite long. Many people have argued (unsuccessfully) to delete it from there because it is somewhat offending to see reference to games in that article. Eventually I moved that list to its own article and it made both camps happy.(Igny 14:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Trim severely and merge. The article subject is as valid as any other in popular culture content. However, It is nonsensical to list every passing reference to the theorem, as they are far too numerous and have no secondary source material. Once the listcruft is removed, only a very few items should remain, hopefully resulting in an uncontroversial merge. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - the article already amply appears to cover most of the major popular uses of it. This collection of trivia is a disservice to the well-written attempt to give the popular culture of it an encyclopedic treatment in the original article. Perhaps a very short "modern use" section could be trimmed out of this collection of trivia and added to the article. --Haemo 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or trim severely and merge. Most of the trivia is just OR, but I'm sure there's one or two sentences that deserve a mention in the main article. Singu larity 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. I don't really care if it's deleted or not (the main reason I'm commenting here is that I supported overturning the first AfD at DRV). But I don't want this content in the main infinite monkey theorem article -- I thought it was a huge improvement when it was split off.
(continuing remarks) I will say on that point that the essay WP:BHTT is just wrong. This sort of content really is Better Here Than There. When the content is off in its little corner with a long name and few incoming links, the usual deletionist arguments about cluttering of indexes and damage to WP's reputation lose most of their force, and the content is available for those who really want to find it, which surely has some value. --Trovatore 07:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course, its "little corner" could be a page that's not on Wikipedia. I've heard there are actually other webhosts out there. Now if we're going to say better there than here, I'd be entirely inclined to agree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point, as a practical matter, is that the AfD voters, following their triumphant deletion, go off to seek another victory, and aren't generally going to be around to help keep the content from creeping back into the main article, or argue with those who put it there. Whereas if the spinoff article exists, one or two editors can generally get away with moving the content there, and those who want to add it will generally accept that. So I say again, the essay is just wrong. Sounds good but doesn't work. --Trovatore 08:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, that's exactly how these "...in popular culture articles" work. See WP:IPC for more information. This meaningless trivia should be kept in check in the main article, and not allowed to grow without any kind of restrictions Corpx 08:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that [[WP:IPC] is again an essay, not policy or guideline. However this time I find myself largely approving of the essay (at a brief glance) in descriptive terms. Note that the essay is primarily descriptive and does not come to a conclusion as to whose arguments are better.
      - My feeling, clearly, is that the first group of arguments, the pro-spinoff ones, are better. Yes, the spinoff is likely to be extremely crufty. But the cruft does much less damage there. In the end it's a net win. --Trovatore 08:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of trivial mentions that are strung together in a list form. The first AFD ran for well over a 10 days and everyone had plenty of time to chime in. I do not think this should've been re-listed Corpx 08:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serious metions of this in pop culture are rare if existent, we don't need a list of jokes based on a quasi-serious theory, there is also the fact that the Trivia articles almost always represent a encyclopedic problem based on their nature, its better to delete it before we have a list that is to long to handle. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a polite request to not close this per WP:SNOW until everyone has had a chance to contribute to the discussion. WP:IPC says: "If properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, popular culture articles can attain quality and be a quality part of a topic." I intend to edit the article to provide the necessary sources (secondary source talking about the cultural phenomenom, not primary sources to examples of the phenomenon), and to bring the article in line with policies and guidelines. This will hopefully demonstrate what might be possible. This will likely invalidate most of the delete votes above and below, which is unfortunate, but I think editing an article to improve it is better than deletion. WP:AfD says: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." Possibly there will be insufficient content once the editing has finished, in which case a merge of what remains may be the best solution. I intend to start the editing tomorrow, and invite those participating in the debate to contribute. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a start, what do people here think of this PDF? It includes material like "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters." and "Monkeys with typewriters” jokes reveal themselves to be one of the ways the mathematically minded like to take an ironic look at their own work and its astounding effects.". I also found Mathematics and Literature, which apparently mentions the Infinite Monkey Theorem (could someone with JSTOR access provide a quote of the relevant bit?) This took about 10 minutes to find, so there is probably more out there. Carcharoth 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's in an image caption: "The mathematician's obsession in extending a simple thought (having chimpanzees reproduce great literature by chance using typewriters) to absurd limits (calculating how long it would take for "Dear Sir" to appear) is the source of ridicule in Russell Maloney's Inflexible Logic [28].This illustration is reproduced from How to Take a Chance by Darrell Huff, illustrated by Irving Geis," It doesn't make much sense without the picture, I'm afraid. There is also a discussion about Borges' stories. Do you want me to send you the PDF by email? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly, it depends on what I find elsewhere. For the moment, it would be best if you and others who can access it, use it as a source for pointing out that the topic of 'mathematics and literature' has been studied in a serious manner. Carcharoth 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit in in popular culture segments as it reflects the impact outside of mathematics of a particular theorem. References to 1729 (number) are few so that they all deserve a mention. When the number of references become large, such as here, the significance of each reference diminishes. Some of the references are significant, such as borges The Library of Babel, which has been studied by philosophers in some detail, other less so. The question is where should the line between trivia and significance be drawn. WP policies could be brought in here, if a particular occurrence has third party sources discusses it then its worth including. If not then its trivia. Applying this rigiriously would result in a smaller section. On the whole I would say trim and merge including only those where there is third party sources. --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The justification given in the article, "...an unusual case of a mathematical proposition that admits a precise statement and proof being widely known among non-mathematicians because of its transmission through popular culture..., is a poor excuse for creating a never-ending list of examples of usage. If this is the justification, then a half-dozen examples are enough to illustrate the point. There is also no attempt to explain the significance - if any - to pop culture. I am open to change if the article is edited in such a way to address these points (just drop a line on my talk page). --Malcolmxl5 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is nearly the same as many other articles on Wikipedia. Compare with Batman in popular media, Battle of Stalingrad in the media, Christmas in the media, Media in Grand Theft Auto, and many others (just search for the damned in media). Unless you cite me a policy which addresses all of these "popular" lists, and begin treating these lists without discrimination, I vote for keep. But I believe you are not strong enough to fight them all in bulk, so you are taking on them one by one, right? (Igny 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not valid arguments. Otto4711 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say it to a whole category of this other stuff, Category:In_popular_culture.(Igny 16:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Some of us have been. --Eyrian 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, some 40% of the articles in that article have been deleted in recent weeks, along with chunks of the content of various of the subcategories. Otto4711 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. At least some of this content is encyclopedic. Most of the notability of the Infinite Monkey theorem rests on its circulation through popular culture, so some of this content needs to be somewhere. However this article as it stands needs work (but of course that is not a valid reason for deletion). I think we should follow Carcharoth's suggested way forward, and see what can be done with this article to improve it, discarding bits that cannot be sourced. After which we should see what remains. If there is only a small amount of quality content, then it can be merged, otherwise it should be kept as its own article. Many of the problems mentioned above are valid but fixable. Articles that can be fixed should be. Paul August ☎ 15:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another dump of every time someone mentions a bunch of monkeys typing. The notion that this should have been kept to allow people from a particular Wikiproject or community weigh in is ludicrous. Commenting on AFDs is not a right. They have the same chance as anyone else to speak up during AFD and if they didn't for whatever reason that's too bad. I was on vacation for a week in April and I didn't get to comment on any AFDs. Should I get have everything relisted? Otto4711 15:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that last comment relevant to this discussion? You're posting the wrong forum. This page is supposed to be about whether the article should be kept. Michael Hardy 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a direct comment about the wheelwarring that generated this new waste of time. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, hope the closing admin will righteously disregard the vote, then. Along with all other comments not addressed to the suitability of the topic for a Wikipedia article. Charles Matthews
      - Trying to use special pleading to rig the vote is pretty much a bad idea. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-encyclopedic content, which is almost everything. Information like "Online there is a game mocking the theorem called "Mojo the Monkey", in which a monkey types random keys that show up on the screen. When the monkey types an actual word, you highlight it and save it to the website's server and highscore list" is really non-encyclopedic. Jakob.scholbach 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I would like to see an article that, through appropriate secondary sources such as this paper, explores the history and development of the infinite monkey idea in literature and popular culture. This article isn't it, and without secondary sources the aggregation of references that it represents must be regarded as original research. —David Eppstein 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep after Carcaroth's revisions. I still would like to see a greater emphasis on secondary sources and a lesser on primary, but the organization as a timeline of cultural transmission of ideas, rather than as a grabbag of factoids, is a big improvement. —David Eppstein 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect) and perhaps merge a tidbit or two to Infinite monkey theorem which already has a section on the popular culture around the theorem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced that this needs a separate article. I'd prefer that the most relevant facts about this theorem in popular culture be just in a section of the article about the theorem itself. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There could be a good article written on this topic, but this isn't it, and the material here won't help that article get written. -- Dominus 18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have reconsidered. Carcharoth has put forth a plan for fixing the article, and I don't think it's my place to say that the material here is useless until I see what Carcharoth can make of it. -- Dominus 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially a list, but not one which identifiably serves the purposes of lists on Wikipedia. I reckon that if any of the entries are sufficiently notable, they can be absorbed by the culture section in Infinite monkey theorem. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Paul August. Also, as an observation, there seems to be a "crusade" of sorts this summer by a few users to get rid of all the popular culture articles, so I wonder if instead of all of these AfDs, a larger, special discussion should take place first somewhere in which a general consensus could be reached, i.e. a special one time discussion or something. Maybe another great idea would be to outright replace something like the negative sounding What Wikipedia is Not with a more positive What Wikipedia Is! Anyway, just a suggestion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the title of that paper, "Mathematics in Literature", has got me thinking. Maybe there is a better way to approach this, which is to have articles such as Mathematics in literature, Mathematics in film, Mathematics in music, Mathematics in popular culture. Does that sound feasible? Of course, properly sourced article, as opposed to lists of trivia, in case anyone wants to jump in and misunderstand what I am proposing. Carcharoth 23:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Mathematics and culture with some rather neglected articles such as Mathematics and art. Films are fairly well covered, with articles on most of films with significant mathematical content. I've placed this article and the other maths in popular culture article in the category. There is certainly scope for a Mathematics in popular culture article. --Salix alba (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The full list of such articles I was able to find seems to be: Mathematics and art, Music and mathematics and Mathematics and architecture. Regarding films, I fear some of the people participating in this debate might not appreciate List of films about mathematicians. Could those commenting here on the unfeasibility of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, please give their opinions on the feasibility of a future Mathematics in popular culture article. NB. Such 'visualization', in an attempt to determine the potential of an article in its 'best' state, is an important part of AfD. If anyone participating at AfD can't do such visualizations, then their AfD !votes are merely commenting on the present state of an article, not its potential (or lack of potential) for improvement. Carcharoth 13:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Carcharoth manages to add sufficient references about the infinite monkey theorem in popular culture can be found. Lists of popular references to the theorem are not suitable for Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the article has been significantly improved, I still don't see WP:RS that it's a cultural phenomenon. That seems to be what's necessary for the article to be retained. I believe such sources exist, but I believed sources existed for another article which was recently deleted, so perhaps my opinion shouldn't count. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the mathematicians have added their say, it isn't any different from a minimally sourced laundry list of things that to someone's POV and OR reference or kinda relate to the subject at hand. However, the article can be morphed into the proof of the theorem, if we just kept adding all content from articles that get speedy deleted as nonsense, it will end up as a FA. This should occur in someone's user space (I think there was a volunteer last time) rather than posing as encyclopedic content. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another listcruft trivia article with some merge of the sourced elements.--JForget 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Michael Hardy and Paul August. Mathmo ^Talk 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that it is important to keep popular culture articles because they inherently demonstrate the notability of the parent article while at the same time keeping the parent article more streamlined. Mathmo ^Talk 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Strong Weak Delete~~ - Putting stuff together like that satisfies OR. Wikipedia is not for OR. Brusegadi 02:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC) It needs better sourcing. The strongest link you have is the one under external links; but that site could be owned by anyone, including the creator of the article. Unless better more reliable sources are found, the article verges on OR.Brusegadi 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC) My plea for deletion was based on the fact that the source I viewed as strong seemed unreliable (eg. it could have been written by the person who started this article.) Yet, you do have a source so in the name of good faith I will change my view. Finally, I feel that the article can be cleaned and you should try to find a couple more sources. Brusegadi 03:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Zillionth edit conflict: Not OR, any more than all of wikipedia is OR. Mathmo ^Talk 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable popular culture meme and deserves an article in Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because...? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it fulfills the criteria laid out for us for deciding what a notable subject is: WP:N. Nondistinguished 13:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with most of these articles, there is no encyclopedic reason to be trying to list as many examples as can be found. In theory, the concept of the Infinite Monkey Theorem as it appears in popular culture could be the subject of an article, but given that no one apparently studies this topic outside of Wikipedia, I don't think this belongs. In other words - while sources may be able to prove that individual entries are accurate, there are no secondary sources at all on this topic, or even that discuss it significantly. Therefore, this topic isn't notable. As to merging: please don't merge - what to include at Infinite monkey theorem should be up to the editors of that page. Mango juice^talk 04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I mean that sources are lacking that deign to discuss whether or how the infinite monkey theorem is important to popular culture. Surely, there are many that discuss the "theorem" itself. Mango juice^talk 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and then either refactor into the main article or keep depending on the substance of what remains. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So it turns out that specialist viewpoints of the "math community" is "I like it", and to confuse this subject with that of infinite monkey theorem. Yet another random list of factoids. A simple paragraph or two in infinite monkey theorem, explaining its actual impact, should suffice, and unless concrete evidence emerges that User:Carcharoth's faith-based plan has any actual substance, my opinion will remain unchanged. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please WP:AGF. I like to think I'm in the "math community", and I !voted delete unless sources commenting on the relevence of the theorem in popular culture can be found. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seconded. A number of mathematicians have said delete, including me. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I haven't WP:AGF? Michael Hardy's big claim in the DRV which brought about this waste of time was premised on exactly that allegedly special knowledge the "math community" was supposed to bring to the table, and so far it's been bupkis. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a wider discussion isn't necessarily a waste of time, even if all it reveals is that those who know mathematics won't necessarily love this kind of trivia more than those who are merely house trained. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep People, please look at this article again--it specifically discusses the applicability to popular culture, with several dozen well sourced examples. I don't think one of the really weak pop culture articles would have been relisted (or even taken there). The people who think this encyclopedic are not trying to defend lost causes, or to say that everything with the subtitle is presumed notable. (unlike those who seem to say that everything of the sort is presumed non-notable). This is used --and often reasonably correctly at that-- as a key element of the popular understanding of probability. DGG (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who would like to discuss the in popular culture articles in a more general forum, I have posted at the Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#In_popular_culture_articles.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Based on what you say, I did look again, but I guess I'm not seeing what you mean? The article isn't a general discussion of the thing's impact on popular culture, and I can't find anything that does discuss the impact of this on popular culture. The only sources I see are basically the "sourcing" of mentions to a primary source. If there were any source which actually discusses this concept in relation to pop culture, I'd change to keep in a second, but right now it looks like a short original research intro followed by "It appeared here, and here, and here, and...". If a pop culture article is composed of more than half bullet points or other form of laundry list, and there aren't any sources listed that discuss the thing's impact on popular culture, it's generally unimprovable and a trivia collection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can obviously be improved, and I applaud some of the specific ideas brought forward to do that. AfD should address primarily the suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. This topic is perfectly good for an article. Those commenting on the current content please think this through. Charles Matthews 07:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. This does not seem to be the normal "in pop culture" list, and actually has some noteworthy information. I was actually surprised. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, the content had already been de facto merged to Infinite monkey theorem. The reason I keep pointing this out is that two edits have since been made to the popular culture content in that article, which makes a nonsense of my plan to edit the material at a different location. Sure, the edits can be integrated with the spin-off article, but it just makes this that much harder. Carcharoth 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction, four edits: [22], [23], ~~[24] (that one is a substantive change)~~, and [25]. There have also been edits made to the article after it was restored following the DRV: [26], [27], [28]. Before I start on editing Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, I'm going to synchronise the content and then remove the content from Infinite monkey theorem, and leave a note on the talk page explaining my reasons why. Carcharoth 08:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this appears to be a high-profile AfD (I'm hoping that people who vote delete on lots of popular culture articles will return here and see this), I'm posting details of a journal that does discuss popular culture, and is a good place for sourced discussion and commentary: The Journal of Popular Culture. From this page, we can see that it has been published since 1967. There is a free issue available at the moment to those who don't have a subscription to back issues (like me). It is the February 2007 issue. It has an example of Harry Potter and the Functions of Popular Culture. (Warning: after a certain time has elapsed, this 'free' issue will likely become 'subscribers only' again). Of course, there will be many cases where "one source does not an article make", and papers like this should be used to buttress existing popular culture subsections, rather than separate articles, and the lists of trivia will still need to be ruthlessly pruned to notable examples only (my rule of thumb is whether you could write a Wikipedia article on the example). Carcharoth 09:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've been adding dates where available, as a prelude to investigating each entry on the list. Some entries are too general to have dates, or will require further investigation. This initial stage will be followed by searches for independent commentary of the form "look at this example of the infinite monkey theorem", illustrating the spread of the topic. I'd also urge people here to look at this site (the article's bibliography), and what it says about the usefulness (or not) of the collection:
"What is wrong with this page: 1. It relies too much on WWW documents; 2. It relies too little on the printed word; 3. It should have a citation for each decade between Eddington and the present, instead of a zillion silly citations from the last year or two."
Much of those comments apply to this article in its current state. I will note though that many of the seemingly trivial examples are nothing of the sort, and many are not mentioned in the article on the subject. That is something that should be done (importing the examples and their references outwards if the article is deleted). The article has also greatly expanded on the list by Jim Reeds (which says it was last updated in 2000), and both lists would be fertile ground for anyone wanting to submit a paper to The Journal of Popular Culture... (I know, that's no argument for keeping it on Wikipedia). Anyway, back to searching out more details and verifying what is there, before looking for sourced commentary to justify it (the last part). Carcharoth 10:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "X in popular culture" articles and subsections. Factoids of this kind that cannot be worked into the main article such as to add real value there have no place in an encyclopedia at all. They should be deleted from the main articles, and there is no reason for them to reappear in a trash-can article of their own. –Henning Makholm 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is an extreme viewpoint! :-) I do understand where you are coming from, but you maybe forget that some subjects have such a long history that any sections detailing that history may need to be spun off into its own article (I'm not saying that is the case here). Additionally, subsections sometimes deal well with aggregating examples until they can be integrated into either the article, or into other Wikipedia articles. Have a look at Ernest Rutherford#Impact and legacy. "Named after" is an example of something that can get out of hand, but can often be justified. Booker T. Washington is another interesting example. His article has "Numerous high schools and middle schools across the United States have been named after Booker T. Washington." - and this links to Booker T. Washington High School and Booker T. Washington Middle School. To my mind, the Booker T. Washington solution, which uses disambiguation pages, is elegant. To use some examples with a longer history, have a look at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar and Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great. Let me be frank here and ask you whether you found those last three articles informative and educational (you may have to ignore the trivial additions that haven't been removed yet). If you don't, it may surprise you to learn that many people do find that sort of article informative and educational. Another example would be Ptolemy (name), which is a mish-mash of a disambiguation page, the history of a name, and some more trivial references (down the bottom). It may be that the same information can be presented in the separate articles, but many articles on Wikipedia present the same information in different packages. This repackaging of information is sometimes a bad thing, but sometimes it is perfectly acceptable and increases understanding on the part of the reader. So in essence, your view can be rejected as over-simplistic, as there are many exceptions to what you propose. The point is that good sourcing to secondary literature is needed, not blanket removal of certain classes of information as unacceptable. Carcharoth 12:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing does not make the individual factoids notable (notability is distinct from verifiability; something can be easily verifiable without being notable). If there is respectable secondary literature that provides a scholarly overview and assessment of the impact some concept has had in popular culture, then that information certainly belongs – but where it belongs is in the main article! However, nonwithstanding the possible existence of such secondary sources, an indiscriminate list of random occurrences does not belong in an encyclopedia, neither in the main article or in an "X in popular culture" article. Since neither kind of information belong in a "X in popular culture" article, there is nothing that does belong there, and therefore it has to go. (I might also add that the current Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture contains none of the overview and synthesis material that one might expect to find in secondary sources, so deleting what there is now loses nothing of that kind). –Henning Makholm 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of all this. I realise that reading through the entire AfD may be a bit much, but I'll quote what I said in the previous subthread (and elsewhere): "Anyway, back to searching out more details and verifying what is there, before looking for sourced commentary to justify it (the last part)." But I'm also now wondering how "in popular culture" articles compare to "timeline of" articles. The former would seem to be about a topic in popular culture, and would therefore, as you say, require secondary literature that assesses the existence and characteristics of the cultural phenomenon. The latter (the timeline idea) would seem to be merely a history of the topic. There are plenty of sources out there that survey the history of the topic, and mention specific examples, without being comprehensive. Would extending such a timeline, with sources that clearly state that some dateable event is an example of the phenomenon (without explicitly discussing the impact or nature of the cultural phenomenon) be OR? Also, there are many sources that make clear that this is a phenomenon. I'll explain some more in a separate post, as you seem to be more responsive that some here, and I'd appreciate an objective assessment of the sources I've gathered that may address the "secondary literature" concerns. Carcharoth 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished assessing the secondary sources. Please see Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture#Assessing the sources. Comments here (for those participating) would be great. Thanks. I'm also posting this at the end as well, to make sure it doesn't get lost in the noise, so you can reply down there if it is easier. Carcharoth 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with many (though not all) IPC articles, the contents of this article clearly warrant its notability and special meaning independent of traditional wiki-guidelines. Any article can be called a collection of loosely associated information -- look at the Bush article for instance, which talks about Bush the cheerleader and then goes on to detail his position on social security. Policies like WP:N were not meant to apply to all of 2 million+ unique articles; that's why we have WP:IGNORE. If the contents of the article are substantially notable (keeping in mind that WP:N has no application to article contents, so we have to use a bit of WP:SENSE), and they are meaningfully connected to a common theme (Inf. monkey theorem IPC), then that topic is notable whether or not someone has written a book with an identical title. — xDanielx^Talk 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; crappiness is a natural part of the article improvement process. -- Visviva 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even more strongly than I said the first time Delete pop culture article. abuse of DRV. The few relevent worthy things are duplicated in the main article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - How exactly could this be an "abuse of DRV" anyway? Note:
    - First there was the accusation of wheel warring when the article had been made to appear to have been improperly speedily deleted, but this DRV would still have happened if that had not.
    - Then someone decided to go ahead and reopen the discussion without DRV; if they had not done that, this DRV would have happened earlier.
    - Then there was deception by one of the people who claimed to support reopening the AfD without going through DRV. But this DRV would probably have happened anyway here.
    - Then we have someone saying I alerted people I knew would support me. I had notified two WikiProjects that this disussion was happening, without urging them to vote "keep" or to vote "delete", and somehow someone thinks I knew they would agree with me, as if they were slaves subject to my orders. How could I have known anything of the sort?
    - Then we have people thinking that this AfD discussion is an appropriate forum for those accusations. That is clearly improper. Michael Hardy 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons are all irrelevant. Obviously articles about popular culture can be encyclopedic. Whether DRV was abused or not is clearly beside the point. Inappropriate duplication of material can be dealt with. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong, they are quite relevant. This article was deleted once with a clear overwhelming consensus for deletion. Pop culture articles are sometimes encyclopedic: this one clearly is not. It's a duplication of material elsewhere, in a valid article, which means we don't need this tripe. And now we're in a ridiculous abuse of process, initiated because of a wheel war from someone who believes that doing so is perfectly ok. This article needs to go. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If' there was a clear overwhelming consensus for deletion among the few somewhat confused people who weighed in that discussion, or even a clear overwhelming consensus for deletion among well-informed people, that's not relevant to this present discussion. And how many times are you going to repeat your "delete" vote, thus creating an appearance to anyone counting them that there are more of them than there are? Michael Hardy 19:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This verbal sparring is not helping anyone's case. The hyperbole on both sides is rather transparent and should stop. Both sides have elucidated their opinions, and now is the time to let others speak.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cronholm. SWATJester has only voted once, so I think Michael has misunderstood something there. SWATJester may not realise, but his comments seem to imply that he is saying "this article needs to go because there was an abuse of process" (please correct me if that is not what you meant). Regardless of whether there was an abuse of process or not, it is incorrect to make the article pay for that hypothetical abuse of process. If the article has been improved or greatly changed, SWATJester, Michael Hardy, and others need to be able to step back and view the article with fresh eyes, and to disregard the emotions they may feel about this. Carcharoth 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplary of the bad faith involved here. I've voted once. I'm pretty sure basic counting skills are required by admins.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe you voted once; I actually relied on the fact that you said "the first time". Michael Hardy 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You wrote "Even more strongly than I said the first time Delete". You have only voted once in this AfD so you must refer to another place (maybe DRV since you didn't vote in the first AfD), but maybe Michael assumed you referred to an earlier vote in this AfD. PrimeHunter 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was referring to DRV. Checking before making such allegations would have been nice though. Especially since after making such an outrageous claim the response is maybe you voted once. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, SWATJester's first edit to this page was to opine "Delete" [29]. Then in response to a comment of mine, he changed "Delete" to "Even more strongly than I said the first time Delete" [30]. It seems clear to me that "the first time" refered to his first edit here. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems clear to me that "the first time" referred to his edits elsewhere. Why are you mentioning this, Paul? You haven't vindicated anyone. SWATJester still only "voted" once, despite the seeming hasty accusation that he voted more than once. --Iamunknown 07:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't trying to vindicate, just clarify. Paul August ☎ 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a coincidence that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is about to be delisted from the featured status? Is it the first step to ultimate deletion per the same reasons as brought up here? (Igny 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I would say the nomination for delisting is not related at all, apart from the nominator being someone who has voted delete for 'in popular culture' articles in the past, and that I've been mentioning Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc as a good example of a list article of this type. But that is an occupational hazard of pointing to good examples in ideological clashes like this. That list certainly does need improvement, but I ask you: read the article, and then come back here and say whether you have learnt anything or not. On the specific question, de-featuring simply means it no longer meets the required standards for featured lists, not that there should not be a list article on the topic. Do note that list articles are somewhat different in their requirements and structure compared to prose articles. See Wikipedia:Lists, and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The main criteria is that the list be: useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. For two other examples of cultural lists, of a different sort, see List of cultural references in The Cantos and List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy - which are essentially glossaries for their respective works. Not a common type of Wikipedia article, and essentially the converse of the 'in popular culture' articles, but still informative and educational. Carcharoth 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further update - I'm making slow progress, as I'm still in the verification stage. I have eliminated some entries as unverifiable or peripheral, but I also found other examples in the process, and I've found plenty of sources to use for verification. I also found several examples of independent, secondary sources discussing the history of the infinite monkey theorem and mentioning several of the examples on the list. The best one so far was this one. The progress so far is charted at Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (the bottom three sections as at the time of writing). The other big change is turning this into a list of dates. My feeling is that if the original research concerns prove difficult to overcome, it would be feasible to limit this material to the rigorously verifiably ones, restructure it even further by date, and move it to Timeline of the infinite monkey theorem. For examples of how timeline articles are constructed on Wikipedia, have a look here. An example of a featured timeline is Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. What do people here think of the Timeline of the infinite monkey theorem idea? Carcharoth 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to it, and since you are the primary editor I say be bold if there is no opposition...What exactly would happen to this AfD if such a change was made?—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may find out... :-) Seriously, given a few more days of editing I'll have come to the end of what I can achieve, and at that point I'll present the new article and ask for a reassessment. In the past when I've done this, the closing admin has relisted the AfD, though I can understand why dragging the process out still further may not help here. As far as I know (I don't really try and salvage articles at AfD very often - it is a mostly thankless task), editing of articles at AfD is OK, but merging and/or moving shouldn't be done while an AfD is in progress (this can be very frustrating at times, especially when merge is a blindingly obvious answer and you see wave after wave of unthinking delete votes from people who may not even be aware of how merging works). Anyway, we will see. Oh, and I don't consider myself the primary editor, just the current editor, and I'd be deliriously happy if others joined in to help. Carcharoth 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge. Besides being an editor interested in Infinite monkey theorem, I'm also the primary author of the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. The first thing I'll say is that this is clearly not a trivia section, in the sense of an unorganized and unfocused lists of facts - quite a bit of apparent effort has gone into categorizing and organizing this list. On the other hand, section forking of this sort is bad, removing essential context and motivation from the primary article and creating a new article that can't stand on its own without the background of the primary article. The best solution is to remove any particularly tangential or insignificant references and merge back into the main article. We should also be careful of the references that aren't explicit references, as some of these may constitute OR. Dcoetzee 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final update (for today, anyway). Please see Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture#Assessing the sources for a collection of secondary literature on the topic. Any problems, please discuss here for the benefit of those participating in the AfD. Carcharoth 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As most of the "X in pop culture articles" go, it has no encyclopedic discussion on the topic of this theory and its use in popular culture, but rather is a list of times it has appeared in a movie, a television program, and so on. If a few examples of this in the parent article would be cluttering it up because it doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong here either. Trivia is trivia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be willing to return in a few days time and see what the article is like then? Even in its current state, I'd disagree that this is trivia. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA: "What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list. A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information..." (my emphasis). I have also just finished gathering secondary sources (see Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture#Assessing the sources), and intend to use these secondary sources to write a proper introduction to the article, which is now more like a timeline than a list of trivia. Do you see how the changes this article is undergoing are illustrating the difference between disorganised, random collections of unsourced trivia, and a tightly-focused thematic survey based on rigorously sourced examples backed up by overview discussion in secondary sources? Carcharoth 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote the quote above and agree that it's not trivia, but still favour merging strongly - whether or not the list is trimmed. The popular culture references and description benefit from colocation - the references provide the explanation of notability and source of interest, while the description provides background that explains why the references are in fact references. A person reading just the description would think, "why do people make such a big fuss about this?" A person reading just the references would think, "Huh? Monkeys and typewriters, what's all this about?" These shouldn't be separated.
  - As for trimming, I find it difficult to quantify what makes an entry notable or insignificant, but I think it has to do with some combination of how important the reference is to the work as a whole, the impact of the work as a whole in popular culture, how explicit the reference is, and how vivid or detailed the portrayal is. This is something that can be worked out on talk pages through the usual process. Dcoetzee 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not quite sure I understand your colocation comments. If you mean put the references on the talk page into the article, of course that will happen during the course of my rewrite. If you mean the text and its references should be colocated with the main article, I'd be happy to do that (with the usually size caveat), though there is at least one editor of the main article who wants to 'ghettoize' the list rather than maintain it. My feeling is that if this becomes a full timeline (my favoured solution), it will be too long for the main list, and should be placed in a separate article. The introduction (which I haven't got round to yet) would then, of course, briefly describe the IMT, as well as linking back to that article. Carcharoth 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should really avoid lists that don't have clear inclusion criteria. Yes, I suppose, a number of editors could try to reach a consensus as to whether or not the Colbert Report reference belongs in the list. But that would be a waste of time, especially considering that there are dozens of other references to be considered as well. So many editors get involved in discussions (like, hey, this one, and the previous AfD, and the DRV) over something very unimportant. This is why we shouldn't have lists with vague inclusion criteria. And also, normally, this kind of judgement is the kind of thing we leave up to the authors or reliable sources, but in this case there are none to draw on. Mangojuice^talk 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, the inclusion criteria would be (fairly) simple. The examples would need to contain a reference to either monkeys on typewriters/keyboards, or another form of random generator, producing a work of literature (usually Shakespeare, but sometimes "a great American novel", or the Bible, or in some cases an infinite library). References purely to monkeys typing, or to a single monkey typing, would not make the cut, unless independent sources opined that it was such an example. You can see two examples on the talk page that were rejected as 'peripheral'. The Colbert Report example easily makes it into such a list, as it refers to lots of monkeys typing, and refers to Shakespeare and other works of literature. The trivial examples can be excluded by a criteria saying that the example needs to link to a Wikipedia article in some way. If the publisher, author, comedian, show, book, or whatever, doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, the example is considered trivial, unless the entire example is about the IMT - this would allow examples such as the short stories heavily based on the concept to be included, but would exclude Mojo the Monkey and Desencyclopedie (no articles on them). I will trim the list on this basis, and on the points that Dcoetzee raises (important to the work as a whole, impact on popular culture, explicitness, vividness and detail). Carcharoth 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of which must be documented via independent sources. --Eyrian 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      - Documentation by independent sources is required to establish notability for individual entries, but not to verify the example. There are many facts included in articles on Wikipedia that would fail your strict notability criteria, but which are accepted as part of a larger article on a topic that is considered notable. Official sources (which are not independent) or independent sources are adequate to verify the examples:[31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. The notability of the topic as a whole is established by independent publications documenting the history of the topic: [36], [37], [38]. Carcharoth 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this is not a !vote, but for those who want a quick snapshot of community opinion at this time, there are appx 23 people saying delete, appx. 10 saying keep, and appx 5 saying something else, mainly "trim and merge" . These numbers are only approximations, based off two quick run throughs at the time of making this edit. They do not reflect the strength of the deletions or keeps (for example, a strong delete with a good argument might hold more sway than a weak keep because of a false argument.) These numbers are presented to give you a quick snapshot of where the community's views lie in a nutshell. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you note, that is opinion "at this time". My rewrite is not yet finished, and I would have appreciated it if you had acknowledged that. Furthermore, trim and merge is identical to keep in terms of the page history being available (delete loses the page history), so if you want to play with the numbers, that comes out at 23-15, which is 60% delete. For balance, I think it is only fair to also point out that a strong keep with a good argument might hold more sway than a delete that expresses concerns that may or may not have been addressed by a rewrite of the article. Carcharoth 10:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Actually an AfD is a "!vote"; it is not a "vote".) It is worth remarking that the volume of opinions, and their diversity, is considerably greater than in the original AfD. This corroborates the wisdom of the DRV decision, that the AfD should begin anew to allow more interested parties to participate. I also point out the irony of lambasting keep votes as ILIKEIT, while many of the delete votes are severe IHATEIT: they are generic opposition to IPC ("in popular culture") content. Since at this moment the likely outcome appears to be "No consensus; keep by default", perhaps those violently upset by the existence of the article should augment their opinions by suggestions for improvement should it remain. I don't see anyone advocating a sprawling mass of trivia; but popular culture is too important to ignore. (How many millions of dollars worth of velvet paintings of Elvis Presley have been sold?) --KSmrq^T 10:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the !vote issue, people may get confused because WP:!VOTE and WP:VOTE direct to the same location, and there is no explanation there of what !vote means. Carcharoth 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I implied it was silly to play the numbers games, so I won't give actual numbers, but my reading of the !votes yields quite different figures to those supplied by SWATJester. Whether the (now out-of-date) tally is left there, updated, expanded, or removed, I'm happy to leave up to SWATJester, unless others have strong opinions. Carcharoth 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia, not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Such statements are considered unhelpful. To quote from WP:UGH: "… some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. … Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." --KSmrq^T 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from an actual policy instead of that essay you're citing from, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. HAND. >Radiant< 09:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  If you do not wish to make a substantive argument, that is your choice. However, the policy you cite mentions only five prohibitions (by consensus), and trivia is not among them. And since it is precisely discussions like AfD that determine what is and is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, your "not encyclopedic" claim is circular reasoning. The purpose of the essay is to help editors like you be more effective in AfD discussions. As it correctly states, there is no consensus on what constitutes trivia, nor a consensus on what is appropriate. We are trying to establish a consensus with respect to this article, and !votes like yours are not helpful. I am not denigrating your opinion, nor those who would equivalently say ILIKEIT; I am trying to help you help us reach consensus, by stepping beyond a popularity contest. --KSmrq^T 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all trivia entries are subjestive, in any case if this survives it needs severe cleanup, no one will argue that one five second mention in Family Guy is not trivia. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that it meets the inclusion criteria I am proposing, in the same way that the Simpsons entry does, ie. it contains a clear reference to the theorem: "Put enough monkeys in a room with a typewriter, they’ll produce Shakespeare". This quote is from the official show website: [39]. It also vividly illustrates the concept. A list with inclusion criteria should not automatically be considered trivia. See the comments by others above. Carcharoth 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting illustration of the tension between teleological and mechanical explanations of natural phenomena. DavidCBryant 11:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup (and possibly rename). If the truly trivial references are removed and the article is improved using the secondary sources Carcharoth mentions, it will be worth having. Interested editors should have that opportunity. Once it is cleaned up, maybe it should be renamed to Infinite monkey theorem in culture or something -- it should have an analysis of "high" culture such as literature, not just "popular" culture. -Fagles 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An admixture of trivial content is no reason to delete an article that contains notable content. While I agree that most of the references from the last decade or two, especially, ought to go, the development of this idea in various texts over such a long period beforehand is certainly notable. Carcharoth's collection of secondary literature provides proof of this if any is needed. Wareh 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the reasons Michael Hardy & Paul August have given, I believe the efforts of Carcharoth to rescue & improve this article is tangible proof that this subject should be kept. Carcharoth is an established & respected (well okay, more respected than me) Wikipedian, & if he is willing to spend the time & effort to address concerns about "trivia" & "primary sources" raised here to make this a valuable article, then we should respect his efforts & good faith. -- llywrch 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the vote of confidence, llywrch, it means a lot. I feel I should add a caveat though, making clear that I would be the first to say that any discussion on Wikipedia should be about the substance of the debate and the issues, not the people involved. The rewrite should be judged on its own merits, regardless of who wrote it or how much time was invested (though I do tend towards a liberal view on userfications if someone really wants to try and work on something that was deleted). I'm also careful to try not to get too invested in an article. Even if this one does get deleted, the equally important thing has been the discussions that have taken place here. And speaking of time invested, not a lot of time has been invested tonight, so far. I have the overall plan still in mind, so I will finish up tomorrow or the day after. Carcharoth 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You bring up a good point, Carcharoth. I haven't commented in this AfD as to the fate of the article, and I do not currently intend to comment, but I am strongly in favor of userfication if the closing administrator decides that the consensus is that it should be deleted. The article has improved significantly under yours and others work, and I think it could improve further (and possibly meet the more rigorous standards of inclusion of some editors) with more work. If it is to be deleted, userfication, and later content review, is in order. --Iamunknown 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Always glad to offer a compliment, Carcharoth. However, my point is that when an established or respected Wikipedian undertakes the effort to rescue an article considered for deletion, then it's only fair that we give her or him the time & a minimum of pressure to finish the effort. Hopefully, the end result will not only be an article worth keeping but a valuable one, too. And I hope this is a principle that the closing Admin will agree with, too. -- llywrch 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just read the current revision of this article. What a turn-around. IMHO, if it survives AfD, I feel that it should seriously be considered for Featured Article status! Adequately footnoted, with numerous examples (perhaps a little too many examples), & all it requires are a few more images -- preferably under Free Use licenses. -- llywrch 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In which specific category should we nominate it as a featured article? "Culture and society"? "Mathematics"? Maybe both? Maybe one or more others? Michael Hardy 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated entries. The article fails to make any claim of notability through independent, secondary sources to reflect the phenomenon's impact in popular culture. The information is not verifiable in providing any real-world context about each occurrence. "1989 - In the comic strip Dilbert, Dogbert tells Dilbert that his poem would take 'three monkeys, ten minutes'." So what? What does this provide in an encyclopedic sense? Look at this PDF that I found: "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters. They all expand on the theory often attributed to Henri Poincaré which contends that if an infinite number of monkeys were left to bang on an infinite number of typewriters, sooner or later they would accidentally reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare (or even just one of his sonnets)." This is the kind of content that needs to reflect this subject, and depending on how much of this significant coverage of the topic is available, the content should be included at Infinite monkey theorem until it needs to be spun off per WP:SS. Listing random mentions is just not encyclopedic, and there needs to be real-world context behind it to qualify for Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise that you've just found one of the sources I'm using in my rewrite, right? :-) Have a look at Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. At the moment, people are commenting on an article that is in the process of being gutted and rebuilt from the ground up. It will look significantly different when I've finished with it. I will be using the quotes given on the talk page that talk about the examples, along with some quotes of the examples. Another thing to note is the distinction that could be drawn between an article about the theorem in popular culture, and a timeline on the history of the theorem. If you change the title to "timeline of the infinite monkey theorem", does that subtract the need to find sources that talk about the impact, rather than sources that talk about the history (I have several of the latter, but only one or two of the former). Carcharoth 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I feel that my argument still stands despite the revisions. I do not believe, per the reasons I have given, that it is appropriate to subjectively preserve passing mentions of this topic just because it has been covered significantly elsewhere. It seems to be a form of synthesis in which the significant coverage is provided in a certain manner, then original contributions are made to further back this stance. The article is still inherently a trivial list, and I think that only the significant coverage of independent, secondary sources about this topic should be kept. Entries like a segment on The Colbert Report or a sentence in a Dilbert comic provide no real-world context for this topic. This is a topic that is broad -- perhaps too broad -- for true article development, as the topic could range from the core of a fictional novel all the way to a passing mention in the lyrics of a song. I would strongly suggest keeping any preservable items in the main article, which is not that long, and I presume that the popular culture items were spun off because of their length. What seems best to do is to remove any and all original contributions like the examples I've mentioned, unless the concept is inherently notable (like a book with this concept at the core, as opposed to passing mentions). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations, pending the overhaul currently being performed by Carcharoth. However, the textual part (before the list) needs to be expanded, with references to secondary sources if possible, and the list severely trimmed, based on more stringent, perhaps, impact based, inclusion criterion.

As Paul August and others have commented above, the Infinite monkey theorem has a somewhat special status, since, unlike most mathematical results, the general public is quite aware of the statement of the theorem through popular culture references (and not through formal education). Hence the article should not be summarily deleted solely on the basis of being an "IPC" type entry. Also, given the low quality of the artilce Popular culture (which, for example, uses the term synonymously with pop culture in the lead, then gives multiple conflicting "definition", yet fails to make clear whether literature is covered under any of them), it may be best to remove the word "popular" from the title. Arcfrk 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment moving the article would certainly be in order, but that is of course a separate discussion. I note that those bringing these deletion are not bothered by the title, but the contents. But it certainly would deal with a more widely shared general impression of lack of seriousness. DGG (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic, total trivial fork. We need to make overview articles, not include every thing that has ever happened. This is total cruft. Violates various aspects of WP:NOT and turns this place into a total joke. Biggspowd 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an indiscriminate list - see the talk page for rejected ones. Lists with clearly defined, non-trivial criteria are acceptable. Oh, and still being rewritten, though the latest rewrite got unavoidably postponed. Carcharoth 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this rewrite going to justify having a separate article from the main theorem article? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular culture, or any culture, offends some editors. So does eating meat; but that does not mean meat is inedible. This article is at least as important as its parent article, if not more so. Frankly, the theorem is a minor observation in mathematics, but the idea behind it is powerful, and has clearly had a lasting impact on the public consciousness. This article documents that impact; and as Carcharoth is showing, beyond the countless allusions to the theorem there are also numerous solid sources of comment about its use. Finally, consider the famous lines
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is Man.
— Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle II, line 1 (Emphasis added.)
To reject consideration of the expression and influence of ideas among ourselves is hardly worthy of a great encyclopedia. --KSmrq^T 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having read the debate with interest, and also considering the article on its own merits, it is much better than many "X in popular culture" articles, and is a well-sourced reference for the development of a notable meme. Gandalf61 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak delete, WP:TRIVIA. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how you intend to justify a deletion using WP:TRIVIA when that guideline recommends against deletion of trivia sections, in favor of integration and reorganization. Dcoetzee 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It supports integration of trivia sections, not articles. The content of the article is simply WP:NOT what should be in Wikipedia -- though it is nicely organized. A closer look has made me change my vote to a solid delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well-written, relevant, and extremely well referenced. —METS501 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which revision of the article are you looking at? In the current one I still only see an indiscriminate list of random occurrences of the concept. No encyclopedic content is evident here. It is still true that encyclopedic content about the subject might be produced at some time in the future, but if so, it will belong in the main article, and not in an "X in popular culture" trashcan. –Henning Makholm 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the revision dated 18 August... Looks much better than the current one. :-) More seriously, I am still planning to add that sourced introduction. I suppose now would be as good a time as any, as I think the 5 days are nearly up (feels less than five days, for some reason). Carcharoth 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unencyclopedic cruft-attractor of a list that occupies the page now must go. Then the hypothesized "sourced introduction" can be added to the main article, where it belongs. –Henning Makholm 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is now finished. There is a footnote giving the criteria for the list, and (after tightening the list up some more) I will happily watch the article to prevent cruft accumulating again. I actually think that when an article is in good shape like this, it discourages the addition of cruft. ie. badly-written article attract cruft, but people are more reluctant to dump stuff on articles that have been worked on. That's my theory, anyway. Would you be happy to test the theory with this article? Carcharoth 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final update - well, when I say final, I still hope to be able to continue working on this article after the AfD closes! :-) What I want to do here is just bring things up-to-date. During the course of this AfD, I've been doing lots of work on the article (and also on the talk page), gathering sources, trimming the list, verifying some examples, rejecting others, and gradually building up towards a reasonable introduction and summary on the topic, using secondary sources. In the course of around 100 edits to the article, from 12-16th August, I've rewritten the article from this to this. The change can be seen here. I hope that, with the introduction in particular, I've managed to address some of the concerns raised at this AfD, and I hope that even those who disagree with the idea of such articles will agree that the article has improved. Please take the time to read the article again, with fresh eyes, to look over the sources and footnotes, and to comment either here or at the article's talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: One of the major additions to the article was the introduction, which was added after all the comments and !votes above, including those that talk about the revisions being insufficient. In other words, those that came back to assess the state of the article later, didn't reassess it in its final form. I would be grateful if this could be taken into consideration in the closing decision. My initial comments on my plan to rewrite the article during the AfD can be found here. Carcharoth 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Everyone should be asked whether the new form of the article is a reason to reassess their opinions. Michael Hardy 05:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I have some academic background in maths, but I'm not inclined to denigrate such kind of sociological studies, though the article can be imoved (=some of its content deleted).Doktor Who 11:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An easily sufficient number of references demonstrate that the monkey thing has widespread impact in popular culture. As content has moved back and forth with Infinite monkey theorem, deletion would violate GFDL. --SmokeyJoe 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The existence of cut-and-pasted content in another article's history is not a GDFL concern, and could always be fixed. Someguy1221 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. Well, the lead section is much better now - and it really is what "In Pop Culture" articles should have been from the beginning, and Carcharoth deserves a lot of credit for taking the time to try and make something encyclopedic out of this. I still find the bulk of this article objectionable, as there is no reason to include so much trivia in the form of "Here's as many instances of the theorem showing up in film/tv/etc that we can find". The list should be pared down to a few salient examples instead of attempting to catalogue every sundry reference. Nevertheless that is an editorial decision, and the effort to bring this up to at least acceptable inclusion standards has been made. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever the outcome, I'd like to see at least a few references to literary works based on the whole "infinite monkeys" concept, especially the 1970 short story "Been a Long, Long Time" by R. A. Lafferty. — Loadmaster 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – although I could also live with "merge back onto main article". The topic itself is definitely worthy of encyclopedic attention. The article needs more work, but – thanks to the hard work of Carcharoth – is acceptable in its present form. --Lambiam 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The infinite monkey theorem exists, and as has been pointed out above by Carcharoth, its impact in popular culture has been documented to a certain degree. So, in some way or another, popular culture needs to be included in Wikipedia. There are two options: keep the article separate, or merge it to Infinite monkey theorem. Now, there is no way to merge them without making the trivia overwhelm the mathematics of the theorem itself, so keep them separate to accomodate Summary style. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:02, 16 August 2007 (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.. Navou ^banter 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlands High School (Kentucky)

Not sure how this satisfies notability. Disclosure: I placed a CSD A7 tag earlier. Navou ^banter 02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, three notable football players are graduates of it, which (if sourced) should pass WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should pass, and does pass are different. I had difficult in locating these sources. Navou ^banter 04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources: [40], [41], [42]. Most of these are behind paywalls, but you should be able to read enough from the previews to confirm that those players attended Highlands. Zagalejo 04:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about any mainstream American high school can be proved notable with enough effort. This particular school has been around since 1888, and there are tons of newspaper articles available as sources. Zagalejo 04:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably not notable to the majority of readers, but the fact that it has been around since the 1800s is enough for me to consider it notable. Add to that several sports figures, and I'd say there should be enough references out there to expand it to be a worthy keep. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:03, 11 August 2007 (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 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light bubble

WP:OR. Google search comes up with zero references to such a technology, and indeed, the article itself says it is an "idea" for future space travel. The entire article discusses the concept in terms of "future" (lab tests would have the object...). Google search for "Light Bubble Space Travel" returns only Wikipedia articles. It is as yet, untested from what I can see, unverifiable, and no references since July. If indeed it is real, I'm sure the news will cover it, when that time comes. In the mean time, perhaps this is closer to a CSD issue, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) ^Ariel♥Gold 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete in the absence of any reliable sources to verify this. — brighterorange (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, "light bubble" in any scientific sense refers to an astronomical/optical phenomenon, not any kind of theory for space travel, as this article seems to suggest. I do not know enough about this subject, however, to recreate the article. That said, delete, of course leaving the option for a correct article to be created at a future date. LaMenta3 03:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, seems likely to be OR. As for whether or not the technology is possible in the next decade, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. -- MarcoTolo 03:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS, OR, WP:CBALL and possible hoax. KTC 04:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds pretty silly to me. --GHcool 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hahaha! Any person wich at least some scientific knowledge would instantly figure out this is a hoax a funny one at that but a hoax nevertheless. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 09:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as presumable hoax.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Billie Burke travelled on one of these in 1939, and Judy Garland commented on the speed of the device, stating "People come and go so fast around here." Burke died less than 31 years later. I enjoyed the last part of the article: "The technology is possible and could be made in the next decade." Time for this bubble to burst. Mandsford 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, full of original research and may as well be a hoax. Burntsauce 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax (unless the creator can produce a working prototype, in which case I will change my opinion to deletion under WP:OR). --EMS | Talk 20:36, 14 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NNS movies

herga derga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.164.16 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax movie company. IMDB comes up blank for the movies listed here. ~ Infrangible 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film studio. Article does not even have a link to the studio's website and none of the films this supposed studio has purportedly made have WP articles. The studio does not even turn up in a Google search. The article is entirely unsourced and no particular claims to notability are made. LaMenta3 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- MarcoTolo 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax/non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable movie company probably created by three guys using a computer program such as 3D Movie Maker. NNS should stand for Not Notable, StupidFrank Anchor 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable cocktail napkin concept. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quote: NNS Movie Company has for many years produced movies generally around Ohio.. And perhaps this is true, in someone's basement, after school... However, even a cursory Google search comes up completely empty handed, and the two sites that would have at least a cursory mention of such a company would be IMDB and NNDB, and that's 0/2. A search of 8 movie titles brought up nothing. WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:NFT etc. If wishes were fishes... this company would have a lot of smoked salmon? ^Ariel♥Gold 06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur filmmakers. --Metropolitan90 07:13, 11 August 2007 (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 blatant vandalism. android 79 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosai

Obvious attempt at a humoristic article. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Enzo Aquarius 01:52, 11 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Spaulding (Guiding Light)

Non-appearing fictional character. Originally this material appeared when an anon IP simply replaced the material at James Spaulding with this. When I discovered it I separated out the histories, as you can see here. But I think this one should be considered for deletion anyway. Chick Bowen 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb suggests this character appeared once on the show, played by twins, which suggest a minor child/infant character.--Sethacus 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources attesting to the notability of this character Corpx 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character is already mentioned in the Guiding Light (1990-1999) article. Last sentence: Their dalliance produced a son they named James. In the last few years, James has hardly been seen.. Out of simple curiosity (my mother used to religiously watch this show) I did some digging, and it seems that two main characters, while married to others, were in a plane crash, thought they were going to die, and, well, this child was conceived. It should be noted, that most of the "soap fan" sites have separate pages for each character, and none of them did for this child. I'd say mention him when/if they decide to age him by 15 years overnight, and he becomes an actual part of the show. Until then, I don't see a reason for an entire article about him. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A not-notable fictional character with nothing of substance to write about. --Malcolmxl5 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 01:40, 12 August 2007 (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. You guys say "there needs to be something here eventually" yet I see no proof or reason of that. It's only two sentences anyway, and I doubt anyone will type this in in hopes of getting there. You're welcome to develop the article at the town, but there's pretty much nothing to merge, so I'm using the policies of notability over what appears to be consensus here.Wizardman 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

Average middle school in South Dakota with no assertion of notability, except presumably the deprecated idea that middle schools are inherently notable Nyttend 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge. Kappa 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why? Nyttend 13:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Needs something at this title eventually. Redirect to the town until the school district article gets created if you are in a hurry. Kappa 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 20:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sioux Falls, South Dakota as proposed by Kappa. We have moved on from the sterile keep/delete options. We now keep notable schools and we merge/redirect a non-notable school somewhere useful where information on the school can reside and possibly grow. TerriersFan 02:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge please per kappa we need something here eventually yuckfoo 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sioux Falls, South Dakota as proposed. Burntsauce 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:54, 16 August 2007 (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 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lowe

Not notable per WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to get this past WP:PORNBIO Corpx 06:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Corpx.Brusegadi 03:07, 12 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope Wesleyan Church

Article about an average church in North Dakota. Nyttend 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability from independent sources Corpx 06:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I wouldn't normally call a church "not notable", by Wiki standards, it does seem to be. I don't find any real references to the church in the news, for reasons other than normal church-like community services. Perhaps it could be mentioned on the Williston, ND page. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another "common" church, the article fails to assert any serious notability. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 08:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There's nothing special about it to make it notable Leonardobonanni 09:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Balloonman 04:01, 12 August 2007 (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. There is a consensus that this content does not deserve a stand-alone article, but not a consensus to delete the content outright. This is the logical compromise, with substantial outright support below to bolster it. Xoloz 16:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge School Collection, Vol. 1

Not notable and blatant advertising. Ward3001 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Bridge School is a school for handicapped children, co-founded by Neil Young. The annual Bridge School Benefits have featured live performances by many famous rock musicians. Whilst this collection needs more detail, it is clearly associated with these. "Blatant advertising" - on that basis, all articles about music albums on wikipedia are blatant advertising ! -- Beardo 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bridge School Benefit unless evidence to show notability of the albums through reliable sources is provided. Google provides 59 unique hits, none of which is independent or reliable. Nuttah68 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NuttahBalloonman 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Bridge School benefits are quite notable in the rock world, no reason why resultant albums shouldn't be treated like any other albums. Wasted Time R 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody clearly establishes notability (which should be done at the time of creation). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 01:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bridge School Benefits per Nuttah68. -- saberwyn 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This collection does not have notability. They must stand on their own and they don't appear to do so. --Stormbay 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nuttah68; there is nothing to show that this particular album collection is notable, although the songs themselves may be. However, notability is not inherited. EyeSerene^TALK 08:57, 25 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading University Canoe Club

Not notable - no external sources included to show notability _TheIslander 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Corpx 06:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable third-party hits for this club. Moreover, it is not notable and the information in this article is difficult to verify as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not feature in local news sources. — BillC ^talk 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence is not enough. There is nothing here to indicate that this club has won anything notable and no reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable not verifiableBalloonman 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination does not meet WP:N nor does it supply reliable secondary sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:48, 13 August 2007 (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 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkulab

Not notable, Google Search returns on Wiki results. PEAR (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep assuming it can be verified. He's said to be a retired Tamil Professor, known as a poet and a revolutionary. There are 72,000 ghits under the spelling Inquilab, but I am not able to even verify if it is an individual--the name seems to be used as a slogan also, and the name of a revolutionary/terrorist movement--and of a movie., These are presumably related, but this needs specialist knowledge. DGG (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That slogan is not related at all to this guy - See Inquilab Zindabad. That's derived from Hindi/Urdu, while this is Tamil. Also, the slogan predates this guy. I cant find anything solid about this guy Corpx 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to wonder about that--As I said, it needs specialist knowledge. But could you explain further? Is his name then a pseudonym to make use of the slogan? DGG (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked WikiProject Tamil Nadu to comment on this when I made my earlier comment, but nobody has responded yet Corpx 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:N. Almost none of the references are any good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too didn't find anything useful in the referencesBalloonman 04:13, 12 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Soc

Delete - Not at all notable - only relevant to what I'd guess to be a very small proportion of students at Reading University only. _TheIslander 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd think the information could easily be incorporated into the Reading University article. In and of itself, it isn't all that notable. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence is not enough. There is nothing here to indicate anything notable and no reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks as if somebody from reading is on a tear...Balloonman 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable student society. — mholland (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love in October

Band is not notable. No assertion of notability. Only links are to band webpage and myspace page. No external sources, no verifiability. Created by spamgle purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not currently notable. --Moonriddengirl 13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External sources and verifiable sources added—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cariannend (talk • contribs).
Keep per edits indicated above. Momentous 14:50, 7 August 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could stand some cleanup and the implementation of reference templates, but it seems that there is significant external coverage of this band to constitute notability. LaMenta3 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The VH1 spot seems to be the only notable thing about this band Leonardobonanni 09:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having their music video played on a few music TV channels is not enough. And there aren't really any non-trivial references. See also WP:BAND. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Balloonman 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-trivial references include: MTV, VH1, Paste, NPR, charting on CMJ, receiving national radio and television airplay. Cariannend 11:21, 16 August 2007
Delete as per nom fails WP:Band Harlowraman 05:43, 17 August 2007 (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 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cardfighters Cards

A checklist of cards collectible in a video game. (Note that none of these are characters in this game; they're characters in other games, appearing only as inanimate cards in these games.) This is a game guide, something Wikipedia is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what to think here. On the one hand, they aren't actual characters, on the other hand though neither are pokemon and we have a list of them. This is nowhere near notable as pokemon is though, not to mention the fact that we DO have articles on them. I can't decide whether this should stay or go, though I think I'd lean towards deleting it --Lu c id 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemon are characters in the anime series, a handful of the manga series, and several of the games (such as Channel or Mystery Dungeon.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how well that argument works as these cards are all characters from games, cartoons and at least one live-action movie. On the other hand, I don't think that there are any lists of Pokemon cards. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no lists of Pokemon cards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteBalloonman 04:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion more than it is a vote, so please add reasoning for viewpoint. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Until it can be shown that a list of (presumably) notable characters from (presumably) notable games from two different (definitely) notable rival companies, that share a common connection through a (presumably) notable series of games, is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. The listed cards link to information that already exists, and the connection is genuine (and much more palatable than a category would be). Although I'll admit that this article does seem to read like a List of articles that should probably be merged into other articles. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trivial association. These games have dozens and dozens of cameo appearances, and these characters are nothing but cameo appearances in these game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really can't think of a good reason that this should survive as an independent article. I'd say merge, but it's just so flippin long, and it'll only get longer. Perhaps just the names of the games themselves should be merged? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a (real-world notable) parent article or transwiki to Wikia. If those options are unavailable, delete. This list shows no real-world content (and many of the articles it links to fail to establish notability either); it is not necessary as an organizational list either, because it's minor. — Deckill er 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason as these deletion debates, namely, they're little more than game guide-type content with zero hope for improvement. Axem Titanium 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's difficult to see how this kind of list can provide any out-of-game context. Marasmusine 14:06, 15 August 2007 (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 the nomination; lists per WP:CSD#G7 per author's request instead. Non-admin close. --Haemo 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of investment bankers

This is a poorly-written article of non-encyclopedic information. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, and listed under CSD-G7 by the author's request. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 01:48, 11 August 2007 (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crefeld School

Complete absence of encyclopedic content. POV-written. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Hús ö nd 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment-it's a high school, so will probably be saved in the end. As it is written, it is flaming crap. Chris 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hope I have improved it a little. It appears to be notable. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable in any way whatsoever, aside from having a third floor which is restricted for students. ♠P M C♠ 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment normally on a public school with only primary sources we would merge it to the locality. Since this is s private school in a major city, there is no obvious place to merge it. Dhaluza 10:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: let's see the non-trivial independent references. I'm going away next week, so please discount my !vote if some are found. David Mestel^(Talk) 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew nothing about this school, but in a quick skim of their website I found a news story about a notable young alumnus: M. K. Asante, Jr., who describes in the news article how the school changed his life.[43] I believe that qualifies as a non-trivial independent reference to support notability.--orlady 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A single article in a local newspaper about an alumnus doth not notability establish. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article [44] and this one [45] look very much like nontrivial external references, which would make 3. Kappa 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content are considered sources to be avoided as per WP:EL.--Hús ö nd 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So don't link to them. Kappa 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, please refrain from using them on AfD debates. They are as much sources here as they are on the articles where naturally they are not liked therefrom.--Hús ö nd 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources are not the same as external links. Kappa 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But bear in mind that these are both from twenty-five years ago... David Mestel^(Talk) 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Sources free or paid are sources, and to the extent that a commercial source is the best one, it not only can but should be used. The refs above are from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the major Phila. newspaper, which is a source, not an external link, and are absolutely acceptable. There is a particular problem about Philadelphia local sourcing, because the Inquirer is about the most restrictive of all major city publications. It should be checked whether it is available from the Drexel University site--some of their articles are. It's unfortunate that the Inquirer is not more concerned about encouraging knowledge about its own city, or the widespread use of its material, in favor of selling a few back articles. But we use it nevertheless. The rule against linking applies only to external links used as representative places, or convenient collections, or similar non-essential uses, not to article sourcing.DGG (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- External links and sources are virtually the same thing on Wikipedia as an external link here is only valid if it's a valid source. There is nothing in the limited content provided by the two links above that establishes any remote notability to this school. I'm not paying to see the rest of the content. You see, there's a good reason for why pay-per-view websites are to be avoided: if any information that might constitute a source can only be viewed after paying for it, then the subject is hardly any notable because if it were in fact notable then free links documenting its notability would certainly abound. Hús ö nd 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that a free website providing the full content of an article providing a source is always preferable. However, the Wikipedia policy requirement is that a source is verifiable, not clickable. There is no obligation to provide a full-text website; the sources provided -- even if the links don't work for you -- provide the title of the article, the publication it was found in and the date the article was published, which fully satisfies the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy to the letter. Alansohn 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - External links and references are completely different things. References are essential, and external links are optional for starters. External links are only suitable if they provide relevant information, but that does not make them sources. To apply external link criteria to sources is completely off base. Everything in WP must be verifiable, but there is no requirement that you be able to verify it without getting out of your chair or for free. Your arguments are far off the mark. Dhaluza 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I think there is something here... it just hasn't been brought out to the level necessary to keep.Balloonman 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep please there are many nontrivial sources for this important school yuckfoo 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article appears to have been given a re-write post-AFD nomination so it now attempts to establish notability with independent sources and has less POV. The article probably needs to be worked on to have trivial information removed - but does seem to have notable alumni and history. Camaron1 | Chris 11:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Does not assert non-notability. References (some third party sources) are provided there. Furthermore, overall sections (including Notable alumni section) decreases its non-notability.--NAHID 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough sources material for a stub. Dhaluza 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes our notability guidelines and verifiability standards with multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week KeepSeems to pass notabilty marginally. Harlowraman 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources for notability. TerriersFan 01:01, 18 August 2007 (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Movie Records

contested speedy, would likely be contested prod as well. Asserts that one band formerly signed with them has gone on to (some modicum of) notability. That doesn't make this label notable, and then per WP:MUSIC any of their past or current bands that have 2 albums issued by these guys get instant notability too. Also fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I originally tagged this for speedy-delete. Notability is not inherited. Also fails WP:CORP badly. Realkyhick 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If the original creators of the article (or anyone else for that matter) can dig up some independent sourcing to some of the claims made in the article and made a slightly stronger claim to notability than having launched one or two obscure-yet-slightly-successful bands' careers, I might be inclined to change my mind. That said, a quick Google search to do this myself did not turn up much, granted I only put about 3 minutes into this endeavor. So it may be possible.LaMenta3 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is up to the creators/promotors of an article to show that the subject satisfies WP:N or in this case, perhaps WP:MUSIC. This has not been done. Edison 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish notability Lugnuts 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteBalloonman 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their one notable band appear to be signed to another label. Skomorokh ^incite 14:30, 12 August 2007 (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; nom withdrawn. Singu larity 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Quagmire

~~A very good description for this character is offered on the List of characters from Family Guy, but a one episode character certainly doesn't need their own article.~~Saget53 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Redirect a character that was only in one episode, and only to move the plot, is nowhere near having their own article. Redirect it to the list --Lu c id 01:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is your friend. There's no need in this case to employ AFD. Was there some dispute over that action? FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with redirecting the article, however, shouldn't we get rid of the actual character article? Maybe I'm missing something. Saget53 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I see you're concerned about deleting this article, but really, there's no need, unless there's a problem with the content (which there isn't in this case). Is it going to save space? Not appreciably. Wikipedia has terabytes of storage space. This article? It's not a significant section of the capacity. It's roughly a kilobyte in size. No big deal. Even throwing in the image it's not that much more. This text of this discussion is probably going to be bigger than that. Is there any problem with the content? No, not really. It's not defamatory, it's not vandalism, it's not nonsense. Heck, there's thousands of diff's of pages with reverted material that's not going anywhere. In this case, a redirect would have been simple, not controversial, and it's quickly done. Basically, unless there's objection to a redirect, or a problem like libel or copyright violation with a page, there's no reason to have a discussion in AFD. Just make the redirect and move on. FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A redirect makes more sense. This one can be closed. Saget53 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. LaMenta3 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - Not enough notability established to sustain an article Corpx 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:25, 11 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Crowhurst

Tagged as speedy but does make an assertion of notability. Listed here to decide if it's enough Daniel Case 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not quite worthy of its own article, but she should be mentioned somewhere. I'd like to see this info on a different page. 11kowrom 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Having sex and getting pregnant at an early age does not grant historic notability (unless you are the youngest ever) Corpx 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this page, linked to in the article, the article's sole notability claim, that she became Britain's youngest mother, isn't even true. -Elmer Clark 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO, and we should avoid having biographical articles on people only noted for one thing (such as having babies young). Also, Wikipedia is not news. Being an uneducated chav with no money, future or prospects is not notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sadly, a rather commonplace occurrence these days. --Malcolmxl5 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HisSpaceResearch. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and per WP:BLP. Utterly non-remarkable. See List of youngest birth mothers. The youngest mother was only 5. Edison 18:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to overcome BLP considerations. DGG (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead"

Completely unsourced. I don't even know if you could source ~~most~~ any of this stuff. Filled to the gills with dubious "clues" such as the assertion that "if a mirror is placed horizontally across the flowers [on the cover of St. Pepper] that spell "BEATLES", a message can be seen that seems to say "BENICE3." What BENICE3 has to do with Paul McCartney's supposed death, I don't know, but the article is a haven for uncourced crap like that. Weasel words like "could be" and "have been suggested to be" abound. Half of the clues contradict each other, then fall all over themselves trying to rectify the contradictions. Was he high on LSD? Was he distracted by a pretty girl? Maybe he was distracted by a pretty girl on LSD! No one knows, but this article has "clues" for every possible interpretation. The absolute gem - a veritable diamond of ridiculous - of the article's clues regards a picture from the liner notes of Magical Mystery Tour - "if the viewer holds it sideways and squints, it appears to be the image of a crushed skull." Does this crap really belong in Wikipedia? ♠P M C♠ 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as O.R. Redundant nonsense. All you have to do is play the 33 LP of "Strawberry Fields Forever" backwards at 45 RPM and at the very end you hear either "I buried Paul" or "I'm very bored." Clearly the speaker is not saying "Cranberry sauce" as the article claims. I have sacrificed sufficient styli doing just that. Edison 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge truly significant sourced material (if there is any, otherwise delete) into Paul is dead, which is only marginally notable. That's where much of the content in this article original came from: this article is a fork (not a POV fork; just a regular content fork). I fear that unsourced frivolous content will build up in the main article again, but that's not necessarily a reason why this article should be kept. Gracenotes^T § 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any. Anything sourced (what miniscule little there is) is already at Paul is dead. This is all just self-contradicting crap. ♠PMC♠ 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I've scanned through the article again, and can confirm that there really isn't much mergeable information. Outright deletion seems fine. Gracenotes^T § 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try reading the article backwards at 25% faster than the normal speed. All the well referenced and encyclopedic content may appear. Edison 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can provide sources as to why "suggested clues for the rumor" is notable Corpx 06:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gracenotes, above. This doesn't appear to have anything salvageable in it. --Haemo 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Bleach! This article cites unreliable sources...--H irohisat ^Talk 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per obvious. --Folantin 07:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any quality, sourced information, and delete ~~the rest~~. Not an indiscriminate collection of info, Wikipedia is...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I mean, this is interesting, sure, but certainly not encyclopedic with so much original research, trivia and speculation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what is Wikipedia going to do with other unsourced urban legends? Porterjoh 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them, just like we're going to delete this nonsense. Moreschi ^Talk 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Better move fast then. Start with the Hotel California Satanist rumours...Porterjoh 10:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Gracenotes. Strip it down and merge. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn me on, dead man The simple solution is just to merge this back into the Paul is dead article. Coincidentally, the Paul-is-dead marketing scheme is one of the subjects of today's featured article on the Wiki home page. Mandsford 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article on this topic is quite enough. Abberley2 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever possible into Paul is dead. Mathmo ^Talk 08:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly a great read for Beatles newbies, but unfortunately full of OR and "maybe"s. Rather delete this article in full and provide an external link on Paul is dead to http://homepages.tesco.net/harbfamily/opd/musicvideo.html (which is cited three out of seven times in this article) and let the unverifiable claims take place outside of wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per sgeureka ^t•c Karstdiver ^{(talk · contribs)}, 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as someone with a hand in this article and Paul is dead, if forced to choose I'd rather see it deleted than merged back into Paul is dead, as it's the lesser of two evils, in terms of what is best for the Paul is dead article. Liverpool Scouse 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I like urban legends and all that, but all of this could be mere conspiracy bullshit for all we know. We have a couple of hundred nice pages like that all over the net anyways. And then we have the new fair use thingies that need to be added to the image and all. Nope, delete it deletionMaestro. --Kaizer13 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't read this in its entirety, but everything I did read was pure unsourced speculation. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:the reason this page was created in the first place was because all of this unsourced crap appeared in the original Paul is Dead article. The solution should have been to have an external link to a site or two that breaks down the clues, instead of creating an article like this one that should never have found itself on wikipedia. What's up Dr. Strangelove 05:30, 15 August 2007 (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Murphy Jr.

Individual was the subject of a prior AFD and deleted at that time. Since then, the only thing that has happened is a revelation that he was arrested but not charged with a sexual assault in 1998 and recently arrested on a similar charge. The bottom line (and sad commentary on society) is that there are hundreds if not thousands of sexual offenders arrested every day. Being arrested doesn't make them notable. Subject was a minor political activist before and resigned from the only office that even had a snowball's chance of making him notable, Chair of the Young Republicans. Montco 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, which could be argued against, but really, it just doesn't work. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. WP:BLP also applies, "...it is not our job to be [...] the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Malcolmxl5 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a national Republican official, but did not hold public office, so this falls into allegations of misconduct by private individuals. Could be deleted based on WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. Edison 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this entry might not stand on its own, it provides context and more in-depth information for other entries (e.g., Young Republicans). This entry does not exist merely to make an allegation of misconduct by a private person nor to spread titillating claims. This entry provides accurate, relevant information about leadership changes at an influential, important public organization, without cluttering or placing distractions on that organization's main entry page. While the subject may be a private person and while the charges may be entirely personal, the leadership changes at a public organization are relevant and deserve full examination. A separate entry for the subject is the best way to provide a full explanation of those leadership changes and their impact on public policy. Glenn Murphy has earned an entry not because he got arrested, but because he worked for a public institution and resigned under circumstances that have implications for that organization, for electoral politics, and for an ongoing public policy debate. There is no point providing information (i.e., the fact of leadership changes in the Young Republicans organization) if we cannot provide full information. We cannot and should not edit out relevant, true facts just because some people find them inconvenient or embarassing and others find them titillating or salacious. As soon as Glenn Murphy's private problems resulted in leadership changes at the Young Republicans organization and sparked a debate about public policy, it became worthy of a full entry explaining the details of those changes and debates. Additional note: How is this entry any different from those for Mike Jones or Fawn Hall or Donna Rice or Divine Brown? Really, I think that there is ample precedent for the validity of this entry. Do any of the pro-deletion contributors want to explain why this entry is any different from the others I cited? Demesne Lord 19:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:N as the elected president of a major national political organization (Young Republicans) and an important local political figure (chair of the local Republican party) who is the subject of a scandal receiving significant news coverage from newspapers across the country (e.g.: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]). Fireplace 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum The AFD nom says that except for the sex scandal, nothing has happened since the previous successful AFD. That's incorrect: during the interim, Murphy was elected president of the Young Republicans. Fireplace 08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The President of the Young Republicans would I think be notable in any case. But the article should be rewritten to simply provide the key information about the charge, not the details of the sex act in question. Unnecessary details of that sort in my opinion fall under BLP. If anyone wants them, they're in the sources.DGG (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable Harlowraman 05:40, 17 August 2007 (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 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferite

The language appears to be non-notable to the point that it would be impossible to find reliable secondary-source information about it, because no such sources appear to exist. A search for it at the ACM digital library turned up nothing that I could find. No wikipedia article links to it, except for trivialities like "list of programming languages". There are no Google search results for it except for the project's own web pages and copies of the WP article. The ferite-users mailing list has seen no traffic since early 2006 and has fewer than 80 messages in the five years before that. Dominus 20:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something.... It seems to be worth mentioning somewhere, but per nom, does not have any other sources other than ferite.org. Panoptical 22:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can find a notability-satisfying source. —Piet Delport 2007-08-12 02:05
Delete. After adding some keywords to a Google scholar search to get rid of the ferrite misspellings that were swamping it, all I could find were four trivial mentions among lists of other languages in patents, all from the same group. That's not enough secondary sourcing to convince me anyone really cares about this language. —David Eppstein 07:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Satori Son 15:48, 16 August 2007 (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 close, nom withdrawn, non-admin close. Panoptical 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadVista

This article is really so short, it should be integrated into the Free Software Foundation's page. All it is is a sentence and 2 pictures. Panoptical 22:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a NN stunt. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. meshach 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two seconds on google.... and google suggests to me BadVista instead... which is far less likely to turn up non-related results. And even so, turns up hundreds of thousands. [52] All of this suggesting to me, we should indeed keep it. An example of one of the many references [53] from zdnet. Mathmo ^Talk 04:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, received attention from multiples sources. [54] [55]

[56] [57] [58] Carlosguitar 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable campaign. JIP | Talk 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Laudable campaign, but in a global, historical context, not notable. Gronky 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Global and historical context" are not criterion of WP:ORG. This campaign is notable because was publisher by reliable secondary sources. Carlosguitar 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass notability to me. Plenty blogs, some press. 172.203.199.18 20:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW I was really suggesting merge/redirect, as suggested by nom, but now that more info has been provided, its worthy of a stub. Panoptical 01:49, 13 August 2007 (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.

^ Top five science blogs. 5 July 2006; accessed 3 September 2006.

[topfiveblogs-1] Top five science blogs. 5 July 2006; accessed 3 September 2006.

[1]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yattle}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay strom}}