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

The result was merge and redirect to Sinister Dexter. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malone (2000AD)[edit]

Malone (2000AD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Esentially just a plot summary for a story spun-off from an existing comicbbok series. Delete per WP:FICTION. Artw 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - it is an important part of the Sinister Dexter storyline. I agree about the excessive plot and trimming it down would lead to an insubstantial entry with no real hope of expansion. As the connections with the main series are now clear (which they weren't at the time) and there have been no attempts to hook into the Malone story (there had only been a couple of stories when the last merge vote was taken at the end of last year) it makes sense as a paragraph inserted into Sinister Dexter. (Emperor 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge - per Emperor. Stephen Day 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Merge and shorten to remove excess plot detail. Note that the main article, Sinister Dexter, still seems too large and, with its huge episode list, seems to violate WP:NOT a directory. The plot and character sections seem OK. EdJohnston 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Trimmed down, this article would work well as a paragraph under the main article for Sinister Dexter - Though, as noted, that article could use a bit of TLC as well. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Could summarize the plot.Mbisanz 21:58, 30 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. Walton^One 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nado sincronizado[edit]

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

• Delete unreleased film with one notable actor and lots of redlinks, nn, WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references to prove notability. Google searches do not quickly lead to additional references. Can't glean much from the IMDB entry, where it lacks even a user rating. EdJohnston 20:25, 27 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 per NeoChaosX. ELIMINATORJR 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana (Star)[edit]

Hannah Montana (Star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an exact extract from two other articles Miley Stewart and List of Hannah Montana songs. It has no unique content and is unlikely to ever have unique content. NrDg 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete since it's a copy of two other Wikipedia articles without either article's history, it's a GFDL violation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:44, 22 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 Angst. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existential despair[edit]

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

After doing some research I'm not convinced there is any such thing. That is, existentialists sometimes write about despair, but 1)they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it, and 2)they don't necessarily mean anything different by it than a meaning of the term generally available. The term "existential despair" as such is occasionally used, but not actually to refer to existential philosophy. The section on Kierkegaard, though a good try, is I fear conflating several Kierkegaardian topics, including material covered (also not very well) at existential crisis (I do not propose a merge there, however, since both articles need to rewritten and referenced). The term seems to refer in the uses I could find (mostly by doing an exact-text search at JSTOR) to a particularly vividly felt form of unhappiness, not to a philosophical concept. This article was considered for deletion before several years ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Existential despair; no clear consensus emerged from that debate. Chick Bowen 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferencedvery poorly sourced original research. Of course, I'd be happy to reconsider if additional reliable sources were provided. --ElKevbo 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Angst or Existentialism; possibly one or two lines could be merged but this looks like very obvious WP:OR#SYN Eleland 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Angst, as that's what I believe Joe Sixpack would take the term to mean. --Agamemnon2 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect' per Agamemnon2. Bearian 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. Thin Arthur 08:35, 24 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 along with other articles created by both socks. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of new Naruto episodes[edit]

List of new Naruto episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of hoax episodes; any "new" Naruto episodes are a part of the Naruto: Shippuden series. Complete bollocks. Was put up for prod, but prod was removed by a new user, who I think along with the article creator are User:Danny Daniel socks since he's previously created cartoon-related hoaxes and these accounts fit that pattern. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:34, 22 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. Walton^One 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z The Movie[edit]

• Note to closing admin - if you read the page history, you will note that one user has taken to multiple !votings, and then removing anyone who tries to put an {{unsigned}} tag on his !votes. The Evil Spartan 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be a non-notable movie. There aren't any third party reliable sources currently used to prove notablity, etc. I will admit it's difficult to do a search to find any of those mentions given the title of the movie, but I did to the best of my ability, and found nothing: [1]. There is a conflict of interest in the creation of the article - though I'm not sure that's a valid for deletion, it doesn't help prove the movie's notability. The Evil Spartan 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I believe it meets the criteria for notability - but that better references should be added. 69.116.62.33 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFILM "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable"; if it approaches release and more sources are available go ahead and re-create the article. Eleland 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (struck triple vote, The Evil Spartan 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)) Seems to be of acceptable 'notable standard', i think due to it's indie status. With release coming very soon and teasers already released (They are linked to from the external link Meme and Zeke), it makes sense the page should remain. It has external links, citing the production website, a 'bebo' page and teaser links. As teasers have been publicly released, it has external links and it is notable i think it definately should not be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All who've added to the article have been single purpose accounts, likely WP:COI. Precious Roy 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The producers are currently sending out a press release to the papers and regional news programmes. The Wikipeida entry is included as non-biased third-party information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs)

• Please only give your bold faced opinions once, and please sign your comments. 64.178.96.168 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop it. If you'd like to remove one of your votes, feel free. But you only get one, and you need to sign your comments. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I suggest the external links are followed before questioning the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs)
• Delete per the nominator, the single purpose voters have shown me the light! Burntsauce 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a yet-to-be-released movie by a yet-to-be-a-director director just isn't notable and should go. But the threshold for inclusion is low and I fear the article will simply be recreated when the movie is released. -- Steve Hart 21:33, 27 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 speedily deleted by EliminatorJR, blanked by original author. Coredesat 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterobots[edit]

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

Completely non-notable event; fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and quite likely WP:NFT and WP:SPAM The Evil Spartan 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources are found to confer notability Corpx 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability, reads like an advertisement, no sources for claims. SpigotMap 08:26, 24 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. Walton^One 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Andersen[edit]

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

Non-notable glamour model: fails WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete - fails as a WP:PORNBIO, but might scrape through if anything can be given to indicate notability for her work as a photographer rather than a subject. (At the moment it seems to be an autobio & sketchy on detail.) If anything can be found to indicate notability for her work, change to weak keep — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see nothing notable (but she's doing a lot of stuff and might become notable someday). -- Steve Hart 21:12, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns[edit]

Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The entire article is simply an extensively detailed plot summary, the lead sentence even acknowledges this fact. A sufficient summary already exists in the miniseries' main article, there's no need for this article, which serves no other purpose than to go into excessive, unnecessary detail. Calgary 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT's rule against detailed plot summaries. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redudant, appropriate coiverage given in main article. Artw 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant and infringing copyright from excessive plot: WP:FICTION and WP:PLOT. (Emperor 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete as per the above. John Carter 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too much plot and too little real content. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT - Not the place for completely in universe plot summaries Corpx 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Shoester 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, Commissioner Gordon would have wanted it this way. Burntsauce 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — too much plot, redundant with main article, not really any room for out-of-universe context or analysis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 27 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. Xoloz 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katrine Dalsgård[edit]

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

Notability Madsanders 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Quite a few Google Scholar results. Not a lot else, though. --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as she appears to be notable. Bearian 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no more notable than thousands of other similar academics. MarkinBoston 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a routine academic. Golfcam 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to have contributed quite a bit (from what I can tell) to the revival of early African American women literature, including Dorothy West. Has received at least one award for her work. -- Steve Hart 21:19, 27 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. --Coredesat 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Alice[edit]

Starting with Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete one-line article about nn book, speedy tags removed but speedy technically doesn't apply to books ranked #194,964 in sales at Amazon.com Carlossuarez46 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears to be inaccurate also; article claims it's the first book in the series, but a skim through the publication dates for the series shows that can't be the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Shoester 06:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The author is certainly notable, but this particular book doesn't seem to have gotten much critical attention at all, and it might be more useful to improve the coverage of this series as a whole on the author page rather than create a separate article for this volume. I'm open to having my mind changed if better sources appear. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:22, 23 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. --Coredesat 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Claims that one of its singles got some airplay but doesn't back it up with an objective criteria (i.e. WP:MUSIC: a national music chart) or any references. Savidan 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article does establish the band's notability with just that objective criterion you mentioned, that "#15 Australia" next to the single title means "reached number 15 in the Australian national music chart". Furthermore, there are plenty of sources available. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; clearly indicates three charting hits Down Under; just one chart hit is good enough for WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Certainly seems notable to me based on the hits. 69.116.62.33 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Could we see some proof for the chart hits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1redrun (talk • contribs) 07:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

  Added. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Zeibura, the subject pretty obviously passes WP:MUSIC. Burntsauce 18:14, 23 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. Carabinieri 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Wunderbar[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for Austrian musician. German yahoo search [2] yields only 2 hits outside English WP. Gilliam 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and lack of WP:RS. Bearian 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete, WP:RS can be provided. Pigel22 00:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn per WP:MUSIC (the controversy could make him notable, but isn't cited.) -- Steve Hart 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete, unreferenced information has now been removed and existing information has been referenced. Emotivegraaf 16:58, 28 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. John254 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ash[edit]

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

I don't think an undistinguished county-level cricketer who played three matches in 1965 qualifies as notable. Katharineamy 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Inappropriate AfD; first-class cricketers are always WP:N per very long-standing policy, regardless of whether nom thinks they're "undistinguished". — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP As the original writer of this article, I was under the impression that all first class cricketers are notable. This has been established time and again in fact, please check the notability guidelines before nominating someone like this Katharineamy. The wikipedia consensus is that any player who's played their sport in a fully professional league is notable and English county cricket obviously qualifies as the highest level of the game. You might not think him notable but wikipedia does. Nick mallory 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, inherently notable as a first class cricketer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, playing First-class cricket isn't something anyone can do - it requires a high level of talent to participate at all. Notability asserted as such and is enough in my (and WP:BIO's) book, with First-class cricket being a professional level of the sport. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable. Per the above comments. 69.116.62.33 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Shoester 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and WP:BIO which states that Atheltes who are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" are notable, making this individual clearly notable. Andrew nixon 06:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per the comments above, he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. JH (talk page) 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep precedence dictates that first-class cricketers are notable, and in any case, the guidelines for improving potential notablity issues are as follows, none of which were done before adding the prod template:

1. Improve it yourself
2. Ask the article's creator for advice. The template {{nn-warn}} is one way to do this.
3. Put the {{notability}} or {{bio-notability}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

–MDCollins (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know a number of people who've played first class cricket - you could hardly say they were professionals as such, just given a few quid expenses for playing in a couple of games, and all will have had other jobs. In the same way, should all semi-professional footballers be listed? Or cricketers at clubs around the country where every team in the league has a 'pro'? I'm not a wiki-guru, but I do know that if you were to list every cricketer who has played at least one first class game you'd have loads more entires. Under the rules, it's a Keep, but I think the rules are slightly flawed.--Gavinio 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is they played First Class Cricket - e.g. in a fully professional league. It doesn't matter that they didn't make a career out of it. Clear rules allow people to do productive things on wikipedia instead of endlessly arguing about whether so and so qualifies for such and such reason. Would you want a cut off point? Five games? Ten games? Why that many exactly? What if they scored a hundred on debut and didn't play again? The rules are clear, if you play first class cricket you're in. We should have an article for every first class cricketer, wikipedia is not paper and nobody's asking you to write them. There are plenty of interested people who will. Nick mallory 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the WP:SNOWBALL effect now applies. Burntsauce 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Snowball keep'. Thin Arthur 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep I concur. Meets the objective criteria of having played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 19:47, 26 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. --Coredesat 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Pelletier[edit]

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

Article sounds like an autobiography for a non-notable artist. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, nn. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist. No real assertion of notability in the article. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:48, 23 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. Walton^One 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project management 2.0[edit]

Project management 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Artw 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The term and concept are ridiculous but there are cited sources that seem to (barely) raise the concept to the level of notability. It may be that the article and the cited sources are advertising but, as with all things "2.0", it's extremely difficult to separate marketing and advertisement from legitimate concerns and ideas. --ElKevbo 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Neologisms as I could find nothing in the sources defining the term "Project management 2.0," or saying who coined it. --Alksub 23:55, 27 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. --Coredesat 02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan DeBoer[edit]

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

Notability not established. Unable to find any reliable sources that verify any of the information here. Onorem♠Dil 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn dj. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs sources. 69.116.62.33 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Needs sources. FAV47, please don't post a comment on my talkpage if you are planning too because of this comment, because I simply will delete the comment and not respond. Davnel03 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to let you know 68.188.208.185, who is actively editing the page has just inserted the word "WHAT" on my talkpage [3] Davnel03 19:40, 23 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. --Coredesat 02:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Man (Scott Storch album)[edit]

Piano Man (Scott Storch album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The album properly doesn't exist, it was a joke in the opening credits in the music video for Built Like That Shadyaftrmathgunit 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As far as I can see, it looks like the author of this article took a joke at face value. WP:CRYSTAL and possible hoax. —Travis^talk 01:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - eo 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a total hoax. A joke was indeed being taken too literally. This can almost qualify for a G7. Spellcast 09:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-per nom --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:13, 26 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. --Coredesat 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lecnac[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion, since there appears to have been no change in the circumstances described in the previous nomination 3 years ago in terms of notability. I would argue that the term is not notable (outside of a single mathematical text) and by its very nature is not verifiable. Notably the article has been tagged as needing sources for over a year, to no avail. I can find no evidence that the term is in common use (despite being a teacher in Worthing, where the term was supposedly coined) and being familiar with the Mathsphere products. I notice, too, that many of the arguments for keeping in the previous discussion were invited by non-users. Tafkam 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing found in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News Archive searches. Cute term but if there were a real need for it, it would be in more widespread use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The article claims it is used by one small set of teachers. Hardly sounds encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Insufficient evidence of notability. Jakew 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a badly written non-notable article that probably isn't true. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Gandalf61 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the rationale given for coining this neologism is flawed. We can ""lecnac" a fraction by multiplying through by (¹/₃) / (¹/₃), for instance – and that gives the same result as "cancellation". DavidCBryant 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DHartung, above. It may be in widespread use, but it is unsourced and appears to be unsourceable. Consider keeping only if evidence of third-party sources is produced. -- Dominus 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable at best. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 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. --Coredesat 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

2015 World Championships in Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this article. This article can be created far in the future. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and it has many redlinks. The article should either be rewritten or deleted. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Was going to say keep because it will be recreated but I have to agree with Anthony on this one, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Pheonix (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated... eight years from now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. How can anyone make such predictions? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete again, per WP:CRYSTAL. It's too far ahead in the future. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Let's see 2015, that's 2008,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 in between. Overall 7 years and 7 World Championships in between. Unless the author posesses some very special abilities I don't know how he came up with the names of his likely canidates. Prime example of WP:CRYSTAL 1redrun ^Talk 07:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • World Championships in Athletics are held every two years, so that's 2009 Berlin, 2011 Daegu and 2013 Moscow. These, by the way, are appropriate articles because the venue has been decided. Punkmorten 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speculation. Punkmorten 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL. Neranei (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:CRYSTAL, and the fact the whole article appears to be Original Research. - fchd 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above (WP:CRYSTAL, basically). ♠TomasBat 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think a good rule of thumb would be that an article for contests like these should be created when official bids for hosting them are started, since that's the starting point for reliable, verifiable information relating to that specific event. --Agamemnon2 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. I agree. ♠TomasBat 00:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should be created depending on the notability of the event it describes at the time it is created. And yes, I would say generally when bids start, it is verifiable and becomes notable. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 01:11, 24 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, consensus to delete after disregarding one SPA argument, and WP:BIO concerns not addressed. --Coredesat 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Kempthorne[edit]

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

Delete she has been in Harry Potter films, but these must have been bit roles, does that make her notable? I don't think so. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, yes, of coure it makes her notable--Pheonix (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear not to be bit roles, they're stand-in jobs, which is even less notable as far as acting is concerned. Ergo, Delete. --Agamemnon2 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are there other reasons for apart from notability? She's fairly notable and I doubt this would be nomed for deletion if it was 20kb long We would lose info otherwise--Pheonix (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What are the reliable sources attesting to notability? (Also, you may have come up with a new one for arguments to avoid, that being article size, although I'm not actually certain what your argument is there.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, One of the sources to check would be the credits. Anyway, See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheonix15 (talk • contribs)

• Well, if you insist... she's not included in the credits of Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets, [4] which was apparently her biggest "role". For comparison, "Boy in Study Hall 2" and "Brunette Lady" do get credited. Calling her roles "bit parts" would be extremely generous. Iain99 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:N, I don't think bit roles are enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no IMDb entry (i.e. not part of the official cast of any non-trivial film) and her "bit parts" seem more like at best "featured extra" where she has moments of screen time but no lines. Yes, ha ha, "real" witch plays witch in Harry Potter. That's about all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Dhartung Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - IMDb gives me nothing, I suspect Shartung is correct. Definate air of vanityu about the article. Artw 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her own website confirms that the notable-sounding roles were all bit-parts, at best. [5] She got a line in one Harry Potter film, but that's about it. Biggest claim to fame seems to be starring in an unreleased, self-produced film. [6] 396 Google hits, including Wikipedia mirrors and pages about other people with the same name, no reliable independent sources that I could find. Iain99 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has starred in a film "The Vampires of Bloody Island" which was shown at the cinema, and was on the cover of mensa magazine. I think that's pretty notable Rubber C 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, which cinema? The film's own website describes it as unreleased - "The film is currently entering the festival circuit in advance of it's commercial release." [7] If it becomes successful then she might become notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Mensa magazine is more promising, if it's an article about the film, and not just a cover she modelled for, but generally multiple independent sources are required to establish notability Iain99 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A press release on the film's myspace page says "...the June Issue of Mensa magazine, where we've just been published as the cover feature, with a four page article and a whopping great ten lovely vamp-tastic photos." And a page on the film's website [8] says a London cinema preview of the film was sold out.Rubber C 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that an article in a low circulation magazine like Mensa can by itself establish notability. A notable film-star should really be getting significant coverage in cinema-related press. The film itself almost certainly fails WP:MOVIE, and as such can't establish notability for any of its cast. Press releases and myspace pages are explicitly excluded from being reliable sources... a preview is not a cinema release, and anyway there's nothing to say whether "sold out" meant that ten or a thousand people came. Sorry, but there's really nothing here... try recreating it if the film gets a general release and becomes successful. And a hint - don't try to pad it with uncredited appearances as an extra in Harry potter or Never Mind the Buzzcocks - it looks rather like barrel-scraping. Iain99 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw the Mensa magazine article and have seen her on various TV programmes, & certainly when the film is on general release she will become far more well known, & will no doubt do even more in the future, hence building on the current entry. Taradragon 16:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Taradragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. --Coredesat 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Sports[edit]

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

This article is about a football (soccer) team which was only formed this summer and has therefore played no more than about three competitive matches in its entire history. Additionally, the club plays in the Dorset Senior League Division 4, which is at level 16 of the English football league system, way below what WP:FOOTBALL has deemed notable. Whilst there are lots of Ghits for the words "Dorchester Sports", I couldn't find anything that relates to this team, therefore it fails WP:N and WP:V. NB Contested prod ChrisTheDude 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless they have an extraordinary cup run, won't be notable for at least six seasons. No other club in their league has their own entry. I wouldn't object to a one-paragraph summary of the clubs on the league's page though (although wouldn't support a merge of this article without similar entries for the other clubs) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely non-notable - they can't have a cup run as teams from that division aren't allowed to enter the FA Cup. Number 57 08:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Would anyone object (would be ok) if there was a mere few lines on the club? Would that be enough not to delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAFE SAINT (talk • contribs) 11:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
  • The problem there is that Wikipedia has a notability policy, which all articles must meet, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I can find no evidence that your team has received any form of coverage, therefore it doesn't meet the primary requirement of Wikipedia..... ChrisTheDude 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I say above, I personally think the way to go is to have a table for each lower league, with a paragraph on each team; but that's my personal opinion and most definitely not consensus — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the sound of that idea, personally, but there's the issue of sourcing, of course, as I can't find any reliable sources that confirm anything about the Dorchester Sports club other than the fact that it exists, and I suspect the same would be true of most other clubs at a similar level of the pyramid..... ChrisTheDude 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably all you'd need to fill it in though would be a leaf through the back pages of the "Dorset News". Not sure how far down the pyramid Rothmans goes but they might have at least one-liners as well — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article cannot surviove as it is. An alternative might be to make the opening paragraph (only) a section of an article "Sport in Dorchester", but stripped of the "expectations" where are a mere WP:POV. Peterkingiron 17:25, 26 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. --Coredesat 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F90 Gundam Formula 90[edit]

F90 Gundam Formula 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article describes in intimate detail a fictional suit appearing in a comic. Not notable. Perhaps of interest within an anime wiki, but not wikipedia Oscarthecat 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC) :Suggest that the following related and similar articles have similar consideration for deletion. :NOTE: These articles are not part of the nomination, and not under discussion. This is only about F90 Gundam Formula 90. --Eyrian 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

F91 Gundam Formula 91

ZZ Gundam

MSA-003 Nemo

MSA-0011 S Gundam

MSZ-006 Zeta Plus

RGC-80 GM Cannon

RGM-79 GM

RGM-89 Jegan

RX-75 Guntank

RX-77 Guncannon

Gundam (mobile suit)

RX-79 Gundam

ORX-005 Gaplant

RGM-79 GM

RGM-89 Jegan

Nu Gundam

LM314V21 Victory 2 Gundam

MAX-03 Adzam

MS-05 Zaku I

MS-06 Zaku II

MS-07 Gouf

MS-09 Dom

XM-X Crossbone Gundam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) 20:26, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note. The MS-06 Zaku II actually had an AFD about two months ago and the decision was keep. --69.156.204.97 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the aricle Gundam (mobile suit) survied an AFD debate under it orignal name RX 78. That can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. Someone should read those AFD's first before they try to nominate them in the future. Also to avoid any possible confusion only the article listed at top is currently consider for deletion the others are considerations for future debates. They are not all up for deletion at once. --69.156.204.97 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect as appropriate to a summary article for the series of appearance. The way to cover most of these is not deletion, but rather to cover in a page for the overall series. Exceptions can be handled on their own right. FrozenPurpleCube 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and even with the list here...you're not even close to the tip of the iceberg that is the number of Gundam-related articles on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is obviously a Bad faith nomination. The nominator did not read ANY of these articles before doing the AfD, using the same argument on at least 2 Afd nom already while the other one is not from a comic from the very first paragraph. A lot of listed models are major characters of their related series, and should not be listed as following related and similar articles have similar consideration for deletion. If the article is nominated alone and with a more good faith nominator, I would go for delete on this one, but since the nominator showed no knowledge in the topic and wished it to be a first of more deletions, I have to say Keep. MythSearcher^talk 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki Is there an appropriate place to put all this fancruft/in-universe content? Looks like the ones getting coverage are from guides and fan sites . Corpx 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a place this is Gundam Wiki [9]. -Adv193 21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely in-universe subject, violating WP:WAF, and has no verifiable third party coverage to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did the nominator even read the "first" article he nominated? Real-world context is established in the first line. A model kit which spawned an anime. (Anyone else wish some people would remember not a battleground? Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - I've been against deleting most of the mobile-suit related articles listed for deletion, but this one isn't anywhere near as good or comprehensive as the others I've seen. It would be better off either merged with a larger article (such as one of the lists of mobile suits, or it's appropriate Era), or just deleted. If it is a major mobile suit of the series, there is certainly more information that isn't included here, such as who pilots it or what battles it is involved in, that should be added. If it isn't one of the major ones, it probably shouldn't have its own article and should be, as I said before, merged or deleted. -Rycr 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Actually, after reading through the article again, I realized that it could be added to F91_Gundam_Formula_91, as it is the basis for that unit. -Rycr 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and I strongly caution my fellow anime fans to step back and avoid hostile accusations. Kyaa notes that this is "A model kit which spawned an anime" but the article says "the series of Mobile Suit Gundam F90 model kits, later adapted into manga." (em mine) So wouldn't the obvious solution be to merge to Mobile Suit Gundam model kits or what have you? Eleland 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, I don't think so, you know how much this was bashed over and over that models are not notable? Wouldn't it still be very notable when a model kit can spawn a manga series just by itself? MythSearcher^talk 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Extremely bad faith nom. Has mass-nominated several Gundam articles with almost the exact same text for the reason, and has obviously not read any of them. Furthermore, in the case of this particular AfD, it's obvious the user in question has not even LOOKED at most of the article listed-- only the initial one has an AfD tag, and well-written, well-sourced articles such as Gundam (mobile suit) are listed that clearly meet noteability standards. Jtrainor 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability and provide real world context. Jay32183 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with regards to this particular article, it and the F-91 article need to be merged into the Formula Project article, which has needed a re-write for some time by someone knowledgeable on the subject (it involves an anime, a manga series, and a whole mess of model kits). Jtrainor 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jtrainor and Kyaa the Catlord. The names may change but the rationales are always the same and always as invalid. MalikCarr 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but should eventually be changed focus to discuss the highly successful model kit series instead of the in-universe story. There are a lot of variants of the F90 series model kits and, as mentioned, were so popular that its own manga series was created. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of nomination[edit]

(to Eyrian)You arn't the nom, so I really don't think it's your place to say what this AfD covers and what it does not. Jtrainor 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't added to the nomination properly. Therefore, they are not a part of the nomination. --Eyrian 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll review and raise seperate AFD's for the multiple articles listed following the initial AFD, in order to keep everyone happy and stick to Wikipedia policy. Have struck out those later additions now. --Oscarthecat 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd keep and add an inuniverse/wikify tag. Mbisanz 21:57, 30 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RB-79 Ball[edit]

RB-79 Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article describes in intimate detail a fictional weapon appearing in a comic. Not notable. Perhaps of interest within an anime wiki, but not wikipedia. Oscarthecat 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Do note that the information in this page does hold "historical significance" to the GUNDAM Series. You would have to remove the series from thsi website to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.112.2 (talk) 03:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC) — 74.166.112.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep We don't exclude fictional weapons, characters, starships, etc. Not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do, unless they're notable, please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Oscarthecat 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fictional weapon that appeared in 5 anime series that is directed and written by 5 different story writers and 4 different mechnical designer, with appearance in various manga, model series and hobby magazine is NOT just a fictional weapon appearing in a comic. MythSearcher^talk 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable outside of the gundam fandom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply How do you explain the appearance in Super Robot Wars then? MythSearcher^talk 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no out-of-universe, verifiable third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply How do you explain the appearance in Super Robot Wars then? And yes, there are tons of third party sources, it does not mean it is a primary source just because the name of the book contains Gundam in it. MythSearcher^talk 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor example to use. That article points to an entire series of games and related subjects, and is notable based on the coverage of different aspects of its broad nature. This specifically addresses a single weapon in an entirely in-universe manner. If you cannot give any sources beside the guidebooks, which are not independent of the fictional universe, thus not satisfying WP:FICT, then the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply You do not understand, Super Robot Wars is not under the same fictional universe, it is a collection of robots from different ficitonal universes and combining them into one single game that links all of the series together, and of course it is to harvest numerous series' popularity. It is totally independent of the fictional universe, since it is not even under the Gundam title meta-series. And you keep saying guidebooks, I must say this again, just because the name of the book contains the series name, it does not mean it is a guidebook, half of those are not published by the original company which made the series, and is mentioning the subject in question in an out of universe way, like who designed it and why it is used over again and again and again. MythSearcher^talk 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Transwiki fictional object that has received no coverage other than guides etc Corpx 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MythSearcher. - Ariolander 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mythsearcher. Kyaa the Catlord 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete Keep and extensively rewrite in out-of-universe style pending 3rd party references to back notability claims. Simply being featured in multiple productions, even one "crossover" production, do not imply notability. Guidelines are clear here. It has to be covered in 3rd party reliable published sources. Eleland 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to mention the fact that nothing can be reliable published source from deletionist view points? Whenever something like this comes up, it is just going the way it is: no, this is not a 3rd party source even if it is published by someone else, it got the name Gundam on it so it must be bad and No, it is not a notable source(when does sources have to be notable? they only need to be verifiable and reliable) and No, a magazine is not reliable (I assume wiki needs the expertise source on this, and the magazine is the most expertised one?). Come on, don't make up rules, and I will have to repeat one more time, a source having the word Gundam in it does not mean it is a guidebook, nor meaning it is primary source. 3rd party CAN and WILL publish books on things like these and will have the word Gundam in it for simplicity sake. MythSearcher^talk 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:FICTION requires "substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". If a well-established and widely circulated magazine about modeling had an article devoted solely or largely to this RB-79 thing, that would be a point in favour of keeping. If GundamCruft Bimonthly has such an article, it's justifiable to ask what that contributes to verifiability. Does such a magazine have an established structure for fact-checking? How do we know they didn't just read the Wikipedia article and then publish the details... which are then used as citations on the Wikipedia article? Eleland 15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Okay, 3 of the most notable modeling magazine in Japan, Model Graphix, Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby(the first 2 predates the gundam series) were suggested in these Afd discussions, and were all thrown out of the window by deletionists. The first one, Model Graphix, having its own little serial story that featured a RB-79 in it called Gundam Sentinel 0079, and got a model built from scratch just for the purpose of the story, interviewed the designer Katoki Hajime, the second magazine, Hobby Japan, got at least 3 RB-79 Ball contests that took up over 30 pages on 3 different issues(sourced in the 3rd issue with these contests stating there was 2 before) and more 3~5 page coverage over the years devoted on model building of the RB-79 model, everytime having at least short description on the RB-79 itself instead of the modeling methods, and the love of the mecha itself by the modellers, quoting official settings and more reality check talk, the third magazine, Dengeki Hobby, holds a modelling competition on Gundam every year and the 2006 winner is using a RB-79 Ball and got 5 page feature for that, including interviews of the designer, again. And a 3rd party company that is by no means asked by the original company that created Gundam, went through the interviews of the series director, mecha designer and settings personel and published a book called Gundam Century which is not a guidebook but a nice little interview and expert talk on technology ranging from particle beam to mass driver to island 3 space colonies and lagrangian points and space pods and manipulators of the real world and comparing them to the nice o' Gundam fictional universe. I believe these are pretty valid hard core data we can rely on? MythSearcher^talk 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment What I'm hearing is, "plastic models of the RB-79 are notable". The article doesn't seem to be about plastic models, though. It needs to be extensively rewritten with fictional in-universe content greatly reduced. Eleland 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply No, plastic models of the RB-79 are seen so much because the mecha itself is popular and of great interest in the culture, not the specific plastic model itself is notable. Plastic modelling is a way of putting one's love into the topic, the whole modelling culture is notable, and thus constantly using it to express interest on a subject makes the subject notable. MythSearcher^talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom. The same guy that created this one has started a number of other Gundam-related AfDs, all with the same rationale. Jtrainor 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what the issue is. Many Gundam articles exist, many with the same lack of notability, so the same rationale etc. I feel each one nominated is eligible for Delete. --Oscarthecat 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you obviously not reading the articles, which is made blatantly obvious by your attempted shotgun nom in the F90 deletion article? Jtrainor 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read of this article. I'm sure it's of interest to fans of such anime, but it appears to fail WP:FICT criteria. Suspect we're not going to agree on this so I'll sit back and see what other editors feel. --Oscarthecat 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jtrainor. All these nominations are the same, so I'm not going to come up with a new rationale for each one. MalikCarr 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mythsearcher. Nomination fails to mention the subject appears in multiple media and the article has multiple independant sources. The subect being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, [light saber]], Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Edward321 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Oscarthecat 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of discussion, can you find any points in countering anyone's point about this article is notable? You have not reply in any of the items I have brought out to claim its notability, User:Eleland is trying to do so, but not you. You keep saying notability is a factor, and we do too, yet you failed to explain why it is not notable, other than the incorrect statement claiming it is from a comic, which it is not. Do you even know that Eleland has made changes to the article and now it is shorter and easier to understand right now and he/she is making(or at least trying to make) a better effort in discussion about the Afd more than you do? This is a discussion, if you talk about notability, can you at least try to discuss what kind of stuff is lacking right now so someone can at least try to fix it in order to save the article? You show no traces of any will to try helping it to meet your standards and it seems like no matter what others do, and no matter what how notable it is, you are still going to claim it is not notable at all. MythSearcher^talk 10:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mythsearcher. I'm working from the notability policy at WP:NOTE, specifically "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's lots of sources cited, but they're hardly independent of the subject, they're books about Gundam, or they're other anime sites/programmes. I nominated a few Gundam-related articles as they appeared to be sheer fancruft (which in its own right isn't reason for deletion, admittedly) but they covered such details as fictional operating system names, versions and so on. I'm all for improving the articles, but to make them less fan-orientated and more general. If we need to go into the depths of model statistics (which some other Gundan articles have been doing) then they seem to be good candidates for a transwiki move. Regards, --Oscarthecat 10:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I keep bringing up, a third party source using the name Gundam in its title is reasonable, since it is about that topic. For example, if I want to write a book about cats, what is a good name for my book? The Cats or Felis silvestris? And would it be a more reliable souce if the book is purely about cats, or if the book only have parts of it about cats, like a book called General description of domesticated animals? If a hobby magazine claims it to be One of the most popular mecha, there's got to be some notability in it, right? And if people keep holding up functions purely for this particular mecha, while not even the main mecha in the series: Gundam got events like that, that is another good notability check. It is not model statistics, it is the events and functions held just for this mecha shows notability. The current version shows no fictional operating system names and versions, and only a little plot summary and the real-life impact of such mecha. It could be improved, but I am saying, just this particular mecha, right now, not any others you have nominated, what is it that you are looking at that is missing, what is required to make it notable enough to have its own article when a magazine claiming it to be one of the most popular does not work. Name it, and I will go get the sources and add it in for you. I am all into playing this little game, every time it is just we find tons of sources and the nominator playing dirty and keep saying it is not notable enough no matter what we get, no matter what source is found, nothing is useful, magazines from third party sources were claimed to be not notable themselves, newspaper cuttings were said to have no fact checking methods, anything that got Gundam in it is evil and cannot be used, no, even a sci-fi fan magazine cutting helps at all, so this time we go the other way, name it, and we will find it. Yes, I am THAT confident in finding what you want on this one. Just tell me what kind of sources make it notable enough to have its own article, if you cannot say it specifically, give me an example article of a fictional machine that meets all you requirements(i.e. you will not nominate it for deletion) and we can work on getting the same amount of sources and maybe even exceeding the amount and type in it, be it newspaper, magazine or TV shows. MythSearcher^talk 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hobby Japan is a magazine that predates Gundam, if not modern Japanese Anime, for over a decade(The magazine first published in the 1960s, and Gundam is 1979 product) and it is just not other anime/programmes. It is a respectable nice popular famous magazine about peoples hobby, including but not limiting to rafting, sports bike, military diorama modelling, aircraft and land vehicle modelling, movies, anime, figuraing, computer technology, gaming, comics, conventions, etc. I have face this kind of convesation before, everything that makes a notability call to whoever nominated an article for deletion, nothing, seriously, absolutely NOTHING is reliable. If this is NOT a third party independent reliable source, I do not know where on earth can anyone find anything notable at all, MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the most popular mecha of the series. There are tons more non-notable Gundam mecha articles out there that do not deserve their own articles. Why pick the famous ones? It's almost as if the nominator has no familiarity with the series. The nominator should probably work with the Gundam WikiProject to hash out article inclusion guidelines for Gundam mecha and avoid nominating the notable ones. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to further note that without exception, every Gundam-related article that has had a re-write attempt after deletion got re-deleted and then protected to prevent recreation. Jtrainor 11:37, 27 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. --Coredesat 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Power[edit]

De-PRODed by creator. I was going to tag for speedy deletion as advert, User:Nucleusboy PRODed and I seconded. Google search revealed 15 UNIQUE Googlehits for +"Too Much Power" +"Bret Meanor" Only 40 UNIQUE Google hits for "Bret Meanor" Do not see that subject meets notability requirements. Again, rePRODed. Taking to AfD. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Author is pretty well nonexistent when it comes to Google results and reliable sources; the book's printed by SterlingHouse, which is apparently a vanity press. No notability to be seen here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per the fox, non-notable book by a vanity press. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Zero notability and per WP:NB. Also, it's unclear what the book is about. "A critical review of the book notes three elements: a conversational tone, a concise, easy-to-read format, and well-researched historical details." Of what?! Also, if there's a critical review, it's hiding somewhere, possibly ashamed.--Sethacus 01:10, 23 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. --Coredesat 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Publisher[edit]

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

Although the article is sourced, it is unclear to me whether they rise to the level of WP:CORP, and the current article reads a bit like an advertisement. Xoloz 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources found in Google News Archive (just press releases), spammy article (why do they always list things like "corporate leadership" or "mission statement"?). Borderline G11, but fail WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Only 165 UNIQUE Google hits. I would have expected more. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, another small company. Bearian 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. GlassFET 21:58, 24 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. --Coredesat 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Chill[edit]

Can We Chill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete speculation, as article states (several times) - this is rumor. Suggest redirect to album article until some real sources come along. - eo 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until verified,per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until verified, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everything said above. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Rumors do not belong on Wikipedia. 69.116.62.33 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL.Neranei (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - current version of the article has been edited to remove "rumors"; this is an actual single from the album. On a more minor note, the article would undoubtedly need to be re-created in a matter of days, if deleted. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hardly notable from current text.--Hooperbloob 00:13, 27 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. --Coredesat 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gemine[edit]

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

Asserts notability so A7 doesn't apply, but could well be a hoax - why is someone with so many medals not mentioned in his team's article? Carlossuarez46 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we speedy a hoax? Not as I recall. 23 unique google hits on a variety of Gemine's, some auf Deutsch, for instance, <i">Mein Madchenfreundin ist sehr gemine ." Raus, bitte.. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable. The sunder king 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is ccomplete fabrication and includes way too many opinionised statements "his ridiculously broad shoulders" etc. (GowsiPowsi 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:V, assumptive hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Undoubted hoax. Swansea have never even qualified for the Champions League let alone won it four times, ditto Wales qualifying for the World Cup. • nancy • 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, that is quite some impressive details and feats by the player, too bad it's a hoax Delete.--JForget 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources given. --Coppertwig 18:53, 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. Lack of WP:RS is a convincing argument here. Xoloz 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Music Television[edit]

Spirit Music Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Are all tv channels available only through Sky Angel inherently notable? I think not, and this has no 3rd party RSes to show notability other than its mere existence. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating for the same reason:[reply]

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

• Delete [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYA_en___US234&q=%22Spirit+Music+Television%22 I would have expected more that 8 Google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both TVU and Spirit Music Television are notable for being the only 24-hour faith-based music video stations, and for airing no commercials by staying viewer-supported. With thousands of viewers, fan sites, and now several years running, I don't think its notability should be in question. TheScalpel 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No RS documents above reason for notability. On Wikipedia notability is objective, and this network fails that test. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 29 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. --Coredesat 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Ebooks[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a company that claims to be a publisher of reprints of Lovecraft and others and of adult material but I couldn't find any google hits sourcing that or showing notability of the company otherwise Carlossuarez46 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable probably a hoax.(GowsiPowsi 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Non-notable e-tailer. (Not sure where previous commenter's "hoax" is coming from.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been modified with quotes added since above comments Samuelhaldane 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 12:25, 26 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. --Coredesat 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Ott III (Gib)[edit]

Gilbert Ott III (Gib) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Little claim of notability in article and no sources. Gsearch fails to show notability for either Gilbert Ott or Gib Ott. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I found one of the bands it claims he works with! Apparently Minera Le'Groom exists. And gets all of 10 G-hits. If Shore Road exists, it's hiding someplace... oh, wait, found them too - a LiveJournal that hasn't been updated since 2005. And amazingly enough, someone named Gib is in the band. Essentially, what it looks like we have here is someone who may be producing albums for very small bands (which he's in), which doesn't add up to notability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per tony Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no sources that indicates/prooves he is notable. No names of bands he played, no discography. If more details and sources are provided, maybe my decision my change but right now it fails: WP:V and WP:BIO.--JForget 22:56, 23 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 speedily deleted - attack page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple velvet lady[edit]

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

Patent nonsense in places, insulting in others. If the Purple Velvet Lady exists and merits Wikipedia coverage, it should be as part of the Human Zoo article, and none of this text should be included. Katharineamy 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability in article, gsearch does not come up with matches. --Fabrictramp 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G10 (attack) or G1 (nonsense), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:10, 22 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. Walton^One 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious Label[edit]

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

unsourced article about an indie label with a walled garden of other nn bands it is promoting Carlossuarez46 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the nn bands signed to the label:[reply]

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

The Stereo Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• I'm a bit unsure on this one - I'm fairly certain The Pillows is notable enough as a band, and the label was created by a member of that band, so that may carry a bit of notability with it - I don't think it's enough, so weak delete. However, I'll agree that The Stereo Future needs to be deleted, for now, and I'm hesitant as to The Noodles. If they've been around since 1991, making albums and doing tours around Japan as well as to North America, they may stand under WP:MUSIC. They don't have an article on .ja, though, which makes me wonder. Neutral on Noodles until I've done some more research. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I originally tagged the label and Noodles for speedy. Very little that can be verified, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 02:42, 23 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSE Students' Union[edit]

LSE Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for AfD to settle revert war over notability. TorstenGuise 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Notability of Student Unions established. All institutions in the University of London have separate identities and separate SU's. TorstenGuise 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into main LSE article. I don't feel that the student union is notable in and of itself, it only merits a mention in the main article.--Danaman5 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article about University of London Union. Normally the main student union of a major university is notable, and many have been held so. What I am dubious about is the independence of LSE since the article says "members are also members of the University of London Union." I'd draw the line here. DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LSE is at this point a constituent part of the University of London. Hence all LSE students are automatically members of UOL Students' Union. It is not through the membership of LSESU that an LSE student becomes a UOL Students' Union member.Wongch2 10:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a technicality. For almost all purposes it is treated as a separate university, and it is one of the top handful in the UK. The student unions of the constituent colleges are also more important than the central body, which is why it is not surprising that several of them have longer articles than the main one. They are the entities with which people will identify, and the main topics of reference in this area. Beorhtric 11:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the LSE article, the student body of the LSE has more than adequate mention there. also i would remind torstenguise that because other crap exists doesn't make the case for this article Sherzo 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument is meaningless, as it supposes that people who want to retain the article will agree that similar articles are crap, when obviously they will not. Dominictimms 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This line of debate completely misrepresents, and has nothing to do with my statement. Thanks again for yet another pointless attack. TorstenGuise 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Random selection from the well populated Category:English students' unions, with no attempt made to explain why it is not notable. Dominictimms 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either to LSE article or as per DGG--JForget 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent, and for impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people. Golfcam 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, indeed more notable than most of the companion articles that have not been nominated. Having only one article for the University of London's student unions would be a misrepresentation of reality, as the major colleges are separate universities in all substance, save for a couple of technicalities. Beorhtric 11:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reads like an advert for the union, just more students trying to get there non notable stuff on to wiki Foxley of Grim 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As does the articles on Oxford University Student Union, Cambridge University Students' Union, Durham Students' Union and University of Manchester Students' Union. your point being? TorstenGuise 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again i would remind TorstenGuise that because other crap exists doesn't make the case for this article. Sherzo 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, you have misread my statement. All SU articles read as adverts for their union. Above are examples of that from the largest and most respected academic institutions in the UK. However, the only way you can become a member of a particular union is to enroll at that particular institution. Therefore, it is pointless to write these articles off as advertisements, when joining an SU is a byproduct of seeking further education.TorstenGuise 13:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • exactly, you cant exactly advertise an organisation which doesnt have an open membership. The likely readership of this article are LSE students and prospective students who would like to find out more about the LSESU. While it cannot be categorically said that prospective students do not choose their unis based on the qualities of its SU, it remains unlikely. And the SU doesn't have any choice over its membership. This is indirectly decided by the admissions dept of the uni, which decides who gets in (and therefore who becomes a SU member). In any case if there is an issue with it sounding like an advert, it is a matter of how the article is written, and not an argument for deleting it. Wongch2 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Decent article, worthwhile topic. JMalky 21:05, 26 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 David Beckham, feel free to merge any pertinent info from the history, although there doesn't appear to be much to merge. --Coredesat 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Beckham[edit]

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

not notable other than his parents; I suggest a protected redirect to one of them - no real preference which, but the article should be deleted Carlossuarez46 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not inherited. --Evb-wiki 18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to one of the parents, probably David Beckham as he's more famous. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing here that would not be on other beckham pages ( albeit in a rephrased form). Merge any content that isn't already elsewhere. 3tmx 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Merge and delete are incompatible under the GFDL. A merge must be redirected and the history retained. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment his other siblings already redirect to David Beckham 3tmx 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to David Beckham. Plausible search term, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to David Beckham. Agree it is plausible search term. Little guy's too small to have done anything notable yet.. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to David Beckham. And note on Victoria Beckham as well. 69.116.62.33 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Beckham. Number 57 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to David Beckham as notability is not inherited. Dave101→talk  09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beckham per same debate and result for Brooklyn. David is the more notable of the two notable Beckham parents. MLA 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete write ina bit of the info on victoria and davids article but im sure they'll already mantion the fact they have kids --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Beckham. There's really nothing to merge, Romeo's name and DOB are already mentioned in Becks' article, and frankly there's nothing else that merits a mention ChrisTheDude 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Beckham. If there is any info which isn't on the David Beckham article, Merge it.  jacĸrм | speak  ~ 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Beckham. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Beckham. Clearly does not warrant an encyclopedic article for himself. --Malcolmxl5 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per Evb. --Coppertwig 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to one of the Beckhams. The only important info other than his name and DOB is that he has epilepsy, and maybe who his godparents are. Academic Challenger 02:16, 26 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 — Caknuck 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable (ghits for "Eli Jones" cancer = <600 [It's a somewhat common name, so some distinguisher was needed]), article seems written solely to push a POV, and none of the sources used are reliable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is significant coverage found through Google Books. Famous within homeopathy, somewhat of a precursor of Andrew Weil (although I have more respect for Weil scientifically). --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of those 13 books actually cover him in any significant way? The quotes shown are just him being mentioned in passing, and a few one-sentence comments from books of no particular notability aren't really enough to establish notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, several of them do, although I haven't looked at all of them. In any case, they make non-trivial assertions of notability for him. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Seems pretty notable to me. --Evb-wiki 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Hooperbloob 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems notable to me (better google books links[10]. On a slighly relevant note, I think we should be a little more careful of deleting entries from before the modern media era, notability wasn't as visible then as now. -- Steve Hart 21:50, 27 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. --Coredesat 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran O'Connell[edit]

Ciaran O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete probable hoax article of someone supposedly a member of the Irish parliament - our article at the constituency shows that other people won the election. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reliable sources do not back this article up, no sources given in article. --Fabrictramp 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An attempt to trace the subject of this article in any aspect of Irish politics resulted in a dead end. The subject is non notable and the article appears to be a fabrication. --Stormbay 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment To be fair, not quite a fabrication. But the subject of the article is the same as the subject of this AFD from two weeks ago. And I must add that although this article doesn't technically claim that the subject is a member of Dáil Éireann, the Irish parliament - he isn't - the infobox as it stands is misleading. The subject isn't a successor to the politician named in the infobox. (And on a related note, as the constituences for Dáil Éireann are multi-seat constituencies, there is no need for a successor section.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete might be speedy under WP:CSD#G4 since this article (or a reasonably similar one) was subject to a recent AfD per Flowerpotman. Not a hoax per se, but not notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had requested speedy in this article on the basis of it being about a "non notable" peron and had thrown in the possibility of it being a hoax. I withdraw that statement but certainly find parts of the info box to be disingenuous. --Stormbay 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no indications that he has a seat in Parliament so it is not notable and the reference is more from a blog so it fails WP:Reliable SourceS on that one--JForget 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont Delete It does not mention he is a member of the Parliament or suggest that he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.66.194 (talk) 11:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

• Dont Delete it simply states he is a candidate of Fianna Fáil for the local election in 2009, the ref to him being the successor has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.66.194 (talk) 11:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, there are problems with that. Even elected Irish county councillors don't tend to notable, in the Wikipedia sense, by virtue of their office alone unless there are other reasons for them to be included. A general exception is if they are members of their party's National Executive/Ard Comhairle. And there isn't any source to confirm that he will be a candidate; for that matter, have any candidates for the 2009 Irish local elections from any party been officially announced yet? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:24, 24 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 per the snowball clause and at least two of of the following: CSD G1, CSD G3,CSD A1, CSD A7. Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivastreet[edit]

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

Not sure what this is. I tagged it for speedy delletion. The creator de-tagged it. On the surface it looks like a thouroughly not notable article about a not notable subject. I garnered 0 ghits for "Rivastreet," On the off chance this is some part of pop culture of which I have been sorely ignorant, I bring it to AfD for greater consideration. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete this silliness. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G3, obvious vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete not entirely sure that it's vandalism, but it's certainly an A1, borderline G1, and probably A7 as well (as far as I can tell it's about a gang, with no assertion of notability). Iain99 18:43, 22 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. Carlossuarez46 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WELLband[edit]

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

Article about a church based youth band that makes no assertion of notability. Top Google hit is for Myspace. About 240 UNIQUE Google hits about a variety of Wellbands, not all this one. Does not meet WP:BAND. Article has been edited by single user, User:Bishopnl. Edits over time increasingly like an advert. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7 as non-notable group, no notability even asserted in article. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:38, 22 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. Carabinieri 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Galluccio[edit]

Anthony D. Galluccio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a city councilman from a mid-sized city running for another office, nn. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An ambition to be (very mildly) notable is not itself particularly notable. Jakew 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although we can cover him if he wins a state legislative seat. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, and has very limited context. — Wenli ^(contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are valid sources for this person: [11], [12], [13], etc. Over 30 thousand ghits. That's notable--not famous, but notable. The article needs cleanup, but there is no reason to delete. LeSnail 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching Google with the name "Anthony Galluccio" generates 682 ghits, the 30 thousand number includes all sorts of pages that have anyone named Anthony and another named Galluccio somewhere on the same page. As for the 3 sources you provide: only 1 might be considered a reliable source and it talks about his car crash - not a notable event. At most this guy is notable locally, like most city legislators from midsize places are. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand per Lesnail's points or maybe merge it to the city's article when mentioned about politics.--JForget 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Lesnail and JForget. Bearian 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Academic Challenger 02:05, 26 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, given that notability problems have been addressed in the discussion and the article has been improved since the nomination. Merging is an editorial decision that can be brought up at any time. --Coredesat 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BIO; apparently created by relative. THF 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity article, created by relative. A figure of little importance, only sources are those created by the relative that authored this article or a single line-item on a list. Quatloo 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Created by a relative is not automatically a reason for deletion. As an experiment, though, I removed original research sourced to a family web site. There's not much left. Although it is stated that he "was a Polish nobleman (szlachta),", the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction. Without the family web site I'm not sure that notability is independently established. Thatcher131 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. What's there right now is not. Friday (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Created by a relative" and "COI" are not reasons to delete. However, the article does lack evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, so I would favor deletion per WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I completely agree that COI is not a reason to delete. I mentioned the COI as background for why the article exists, though I should have been more clear. THF 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Thatcher131 Danny 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per notability. --Tom 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to me that all recipients' of a country "highest military decoration for valor" (in this case Virtuti Militari) are notable per se. WjBscribe 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are five classes of Virtuti Militari, and only the first class, by definition, is the "highest military decoration for valor." According to Virtuti Militari's comprehensive list, Dunin is not one of the first-class recipients. I don't think WP:BIO encompasses the thousands of fifth-class Virtuti Militari awards. THF 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe if you refer to the information on the Virtuti Militari after the 1933 changes (Antoni was awarded III class in 1938) the difference between classes was the number of men you commanded. Since Antoni did not command a front or entire war, he would not be eligible for I or II.Shell ^babelfish 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article is worthy of keeping on the basis of the award - especially given the tiers are affected only by number of men commanded. I was worried about the possibility of too many stubs about medal recipients with no further content- but judging from the additional sourced material it seems we can include referenced material detailing some of his military actity. His marriage is also referenced. There seems to be enough that can be said to warrant an article, and the award establishes notability. WjBscribe 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was asked to restore the deleted content and I have. However, note that everything except the name in a list of medal winners and the daughter's engagement is sourced to the author's personal family history web site. Now, I love family history and have my own family history web site, but I haven't written articles about them on Wikipedia. Thatcher131 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm neutral in terms of deletion. This bio is about a relative of User:Elonka, and there has been a great deal of controversy around her family's articles here. There's a thread at WP:ANI which alludes to some of the issues. I ask the closing admin to pay extra heed in dealing with this potential hot potato. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra heed? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the fact that this is an editor's relative and there's been controversy should probably be ignored for the purposes of closing this AFD. The article should be deleted or kept on its own merits, not based on who wrote it. Friday (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per THF, not a recipient of highest class honour so fails notability there, especially since no mention in article at all of military exploits unlike other articles of (first class) recipients. If he is notable for military activities, would surely require reliable sourced information on that, rather than general bio. The rest of article is original researched family information. Fails BIO, OR, and lack of evidence of reliable secondary sources. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Thatcher131 hits it on the head, here; there are virtually no independent sources made available regarding this person, and it would seem to be based mostly on original research. Thus, it seems he would fail WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Table the question. This AFD reiterates a prior, failed AFD, adds no new reason for deletion, was opened in questionable faith and is rapidly turning into, based on some of the personalities so far involved, more of a proxy referendum on our opinion of User:Elonka than it is a proper AFD discussion. I don't think we can come to any meaningful decision at this time, on this issue. Philwelch 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This problem already has a solution: opinions which are not relevant, such as any opinions about a particular editor, will be disregarded in the closure of this AFD. We don't put Wikipedia on hold just because there's a conflict. Friday (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if the opinion is unstated? You're going to have a hard time enforcing that. Don't be naive—everyone on Wikipedia knows how to game the political process by now. Philwelch 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never dealt with Elonka in my life before today, and resent the questioning of my good faith. There is new information: the previous discussion incorrectly claimed repeatedly that there was notability because Dunin was the recipient of the highest Polish military honor, but Dunin does not have the highest Polish military honor. I think most of Elonka's other articles satisfy WP:BIO, and do not propose deletion of them. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of you or your dealings with Elonka—it is the timing that gives me pause. Philwelch 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Friday. I love Elonka as much as the next mouse, but this is about the article, not about her. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some of us who have been active at AfD over the past six months remember the Arbuthnot articles, which were created in large numbers based on a fairly-well-written family genealogy that was held in a number of American libraries, and probably in other countries too. The problem is that there were no other accessible documents from which a real article could be written. I believe that the Antoni Dunin article suffers from the same problems. In the case of the Arbuthnot articles, which included a number of military figures, we did keep those who were documented as commanding a substantial number of troops in combat. See WP:MILHIST#Notability. I'm influenced by the argument given above by THF that Virtuti Militari came in several categories, and Antoni Dunin did not receive the highest grade of Virtuti Militari. Irrespective of any arguments that might be based on WP:MILHIST, the lack of secondary sources is a serious problem. EdJohnston 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/comment Just out of curiosity, had this article been created by a non-relative and the family tree references used been cited by an individual other than the person who created it, would this even be a RS/V/OR issue? I've seen entirely unsourced articles brought for deletion that were kept based upon the addition of references to personal/official websites for the individual/organization by independent individuals. These articles were primarily based upon these sources. LaMenta3 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article flunks WP:BIO even including the genelogical materials. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a family history buff. With the exception of a few very notable families, (e.g. the Kennedys) whose history is researched, documented and published by multiple biographers, almost all family history is original research as defined by Wikipedia. Simply put, not enough people care about the Thatcher family to have multiple (or even one) well-researched and fact-checked family tree published by a non-vanity press. I could write about my great-uncle, who was co-founder and president of a major bank, because there are multiple sources about his life, but I can't write about his brothers or his ancestry because, as interesting as they are to me, no one else has found them interesting enough to write about them. I could give you their names and ask you to write a non-COI article but you would not find anything on the web that didn't originally come from me. Personal family history web sites are simply not reliable sources. A good site might be a legitimate external link, if it had copies of letters, documents, and so forth that the historian had accumulated. The family tree cited here is nothing more than names and dates, and although I'm sure the author has documentation to support this family tree, it is not provided--and even if it were, it would be original research, unless independently published. Thatcher131 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice, and encourage someone^† to userfy. An interesting life story and nobility alone do not seem to meet the ever-subjective notability threshold. But, if notability can be established, then I'd have no objection to the article be resurrected or recreated. (^†Someone other than me, that is...)   justen   21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom- no evidence of any notability.--Sefringle^Talk 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as article creator) I will respect the community consensus on this, but I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. I did not create this article because the individual is my grandfather, I created the article because I felt that he met Wikipedia's notability standards. I also created other articles about other family members, who I similarly felt were sufficiently notable. I had reviewed discussions such as at Wikipedia:Centralized discussions where the consensus on Nobility was that those of noble genealogy were inherently notable. I had seen AfDs such as this one that showed consensus for this as well.[14] I also saw that those who were recipients of a country's highest medal were considered notable. I was able to locate a third-party list confirming the award of the Virtuti Militari medal.[15] And I had plenty of primary sources which confirmed the information, and were summarized in my family tree. Granted, there's not much more than a stub article here, but I felt that there was enough for a "real" stub. I also added some other minor biographical information, which is sourced to my own family tree. As it turned out, the quantity of biographical information exceeded the amount of third-party sourced information. I apologize if it looks like I was trying to create a "fluff" piece about one of my relatives, as that was not my intention at the time. I felt then (and still do), that I was helping to "fill in a gap". There are plenty of places where Wikipedia someday will have articles, that it currently doesn't. The Mayors of Warsaw, the Finance Ministers of Pre-War Poland, etc. I couldn't add comprehensive lists, but I could be bold and add the bits and pieces of sources that I had access to at the time. Since I created the article, other sources have become available too, though they haven't been added to the article yet (and some are in Polish). Confirmation of his family home.[16] A document about his cavalry unit.[17] The New York Times obituary of Antoni's father-in-law, Edward Werner, confirms that Antoni was a Count (by listing the death of his wife).[18] Confirmation that he's considered one of the notable members of his coat of arms.[19] The Polish Biographical Dictionary confirms the title of Antoni's father, Rodryg Dunin.[20] And I have a 1947 letter from Senator Homer Ferguson to Secretary of State George Marshall, which mentions Anton Dunin by name, along with his children and some other relatives, as Ferguson worked with Congressional candidate Alfred Niezychowski (another of my relatives named in the letter) to get Antoni's orphaned children into the United States. It is also my understanding that Ferguson actually added a rider to a Congressional bill, to specifically name the children and help them get into the country (though I have not been able to locate the exact bill, so of course it cannot yet be used as a source). Whether or not anyone chooses to believe me, I can't control. But I am speaking sincerely here: It is my belief that Antoni Dunin passes WP:BIO. If you delete this stub article today, my guess is that sometime in the future, it will just be re-created. I think that deleting it would be a waste, and that ultimately, it would leave Wikipedia weaker than if the stub article were kept for later expansion. If others feel that the article is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia though, and that Wikipedia would be better off without it, well, that's your decision to make. --Elonka 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sincerity of Elonka's position, and do not question her good faith in creating the article. But I believe that even if this additional information were included, there would be a lack of notability meriting its own article. There are many Congressional bills (and senatorial interventions) for the benefit of individual immigrants; there are many many nobles, especially if we expand the concept of notability to include relatively minor nations on the world stage; there are many relatives of people who had New York Times obituaries or entries in biographical dictionaries. So long as we have a WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#NEWS guidelines, these are not enough for notability for individual articles. I further note that many dead-tree and Wikipedia biographies include information about a subject's parents and children, and nothing prevents Elonka or others from updating the articles for Dunin's father and children with information about Dunin. I do note a certain unfairness, as we tolerate far less notability than Dunin has when it comes to articles about local bar bands, but that is an issue outside the scope of this AFD. THF 07:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, before casting my vote can someone clarify to me if Nobility immediately signifies notability according to WP guidelines, as alluded to by user Elonka? Honestly, I'm not sure. There are literally thousands and thousands of titled people throughout history, many, many (if not most) of which I would argue fail WP:BIO. If Nobility does not = Notability, and with the apparent lack of RS, then this article seems to fail. If Nobility = Notability then its a pass on that merit alone, provided of course that his entitlement can be established through RS, which shouldn't be too difficult I would think. --Trippz 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability comes from sources, not from our own original made-up criteria. Anyone who asserts "being an X makes a thing automatically notable" is either misguided, or is oversimplifying the situation. Saying "A Nobel prize winner is automatically notable" is correct if what you really mean is "someone who has won a Nobel prize would surely have lots of coverage in proper sources". Friday (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Friday, with respect I disagree with that. Sometime we set arbitrary inclusion standards. Receiving a Pulitzer prize or an Olympic medal is inherently notable, regardless of whether or not they've been covered in the press. This is especially the case when dealing with things that happened in the past, for which judging the amount of popular attention is more difficult. As a more current example, take a look at WP:BAND. Criteria #8 says "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" and #9 says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". No external coverage is required in addition to that. Are we really saying that we will include all bands that have won a major music award, but not all soldiers who have won a major bravery award? That result seems incongruous to me. WjBscribe 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see those kinds of criteria as rules of thumb about what sorts of things will tend to be notable, rather than a definition of what makes them notable. Perhaps it's a small distinction. If by "notable" we just mean "suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia", then the subjects must have sufficient coverage to allow a properly sourced article. I disagree with most of the subject-specific notability rules for this reason. If you really break it down, the only way we know someone has won a grammy, for example, is that there are lots of sources that cover that sort of thing. Friday (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I'd commented to this article, this leads to the same question we had the MILHIST criterion (though since cleared up in this case): what if an individual satisfies a notability guideline, but there are no independent sources with which to write the article? Do we create a stub that will never be expanded? Do we expand what would otherwise be a stub with original research, as was done here? I think the answer is - must be - that satisfying a notability guideline doesn't mean that we must have an article, only that we can have one if and only if we have reliable independent sources with which to write it. Put another way, guidelines don't trump policy.Proabivouac 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thatcher has said that " the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction" Actually according to the Wilipedia article he linked "Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, forming some 10%-12% of the total population and almost 25% among ethnic Poles[21]," - Clearly if 1 in 4 ethnic poles were szlachta, in the case of Poland, noble does not automatically equal notable. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that simply being szlachta alone is not sufficient for notability. The term szlachta is one of those words that doesn't have a direct easy translation to English, though I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on the subject. Some might define it as "gentry", others as "noble class," but neither of those really hits it either. In any case, I would point out that even among the szlachta there were distinctions. Some were considered of the noble class, while still effectively living as poor peasants. Others were landowners and wielded considerable power. And a few (very few) others actually had hereditary titles. It is my opinion that those with the titles, meet the "notability" standard. I can say from my own personal research on family trees, that I would often see genealogists in past generations bending over backwards to expand the boundaries of their own trees, to prove a link to someone with a title, even if it was a "third-cousin by marriage" or something. For another example, on family crests, there are usually various symbols, and sometimes those symbols reflected great power, such as actually having a crown. Antoni Dunin's crest had this.[22] I have primary sources on multiple family heirlooms which verify this crest. For example, this painting which was hanging in Antoni Dunin's home (pre-1939) [23] and other documents and a few dishes. Proof of the importance of the title is also reflected by other family relationships, which proved that Antoni Dunin wasn't an isolated szlachta, but was a member of an influential and intellectual family. His marriage (1933 wedding pic) was an example of one family with a title (Dunin) marrying another family which had even more financial power (Werner). Antoni's wife Sophia was the daughter of the vice-Finance Minister Edward Werner; niece of Jan Czarnowski, Papal Chamberlain to Pope Pius XI; great-niece of an extremely influential priest who has since been canonized, Saint Raphael Kalinowski, who himself had been tutor to Prince August Czartoryski. This was a major family in Poland. I could list other relatives, but this list is getting long enough. ;) For one last example though, Rodryg Dunin is listed as "hrabiego" here.[24] That "Hrabia" title is not used for all szlachta -- it's a specific noble and hereditary title, which is why I feel that it is relevant for notability. --Elonka 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better to be able to establish importance independently. For example, by being listed in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. The problem with Antoni is that without a significant independent measure of importance, we are left to decide whether the various aspects of his life add up to importance, and that will always be subjective. Does his title, status as a decorated war casualty, and marriage to the daughter of an important person add up to a "notable" life (as the term is used here). Or, to put it another way, how likely is it that users around the world will someday want to know more about this person? Thatcher131 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it comes down to an odd distinction we are hashing out here. A modern musical group can have an article if they win a major music award (criteria #8 of WP:BAND). Who will want to someday know more about all of them? I don't know. But we seem to not be proposing to include all soldiers who received major bravery awards. That bothers me as it seems to indicate an inherent bias in Wikipedia - are we really that much more focused on modern music than historical bravery in combat? Seems to me we're in the process of giving our critics a lot of ammunition... WjBscribe 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you find an example of a band that has won a major award but for which no other independent sources exist, then we can talk. Until then, its a straw man argument. Thatcher131 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on hundreds of Olympic medalists (surely a major award) with no other independent sources existing or likely to show up. Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis, Telemachos Karakalos, Louis Glineux, ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that AnonEMouse - to take as an example the first example you gave, without looking at the others, 128 google hits for Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis from a wide variety of sources, and that article is a stub. Maybe I am misunderstanding regarding what is termed as independent source? Striking through, as I understand what AnonEMouse is saying now about sources •CHILLDOUBT• 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject passes WP:BIO as a recipient of the highest military decoration for valor, in this case Virtuti Militari. Burntsauce 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep per my last vote (if reasons for having received VM are given). Otherwise, merge into Dunin family article. Certainly don't delete.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per reference No 1. New York Times has archived its articles on internet since 1981. There is no way to go back to 1945 to verify it, but all other references check out. Even the author of AfD acknowledged he posted it for all the wrong reasons - inadmissible evidence. A very noble count from a very notable family, and veteran of the first days of WWII (Polish September 1939), died young in combat, highly distinguished by an equivalent of an OBE/KBE (verifiable), survived by only few kids, one of whom became a senior wikipedian. What's wrong with that? greg park avenue 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the New York Times article is your reason to keep, you may wish to reconsider: it's an obituary for his wife's father and doesn't mention Antoni Dunin at all (I have the pdf right here).Proabivouac 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. I hate to belabor this since I normally avoid AfD and I do not like to have to criticize someone's heartfelt and sincere hard work. But, the NY Times reference is an obituary for Edward Werner. It says "Surviving are a daughter, Mrs. Maria Ciechomska of Warsaw, and a son, Lieut. Karol Werner of the Polish Army in England. Another daughter, Countess Zophia Dunin, was killed by German machine gun bullets early in the recent war." That's not bad as a genealogical source but it doesn't do anything to establish the importance of Zophia's husband (who isn't even named) as a subject for an encyclopedia entry. Thatcher131 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's Elonka explain that little misunderstanding regarding Virtuti Militari. However I think you got that one wrong. The title of the article: "Edward Werner, Ex-vice Minister of Finance of Poland had Lectured Here" doesn't seem like an obituary to me; more like a review made by NYU or Columbia officials? Maybe there was another one in this particular issue of New York Times? greg park avenue 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Image:Werner 1945-11-17.pdf. Thatcher131 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were right. There was only an info about his wife - Zofia Dunin - killed by German bullets in 1939. So, I shifted this reference to its proper place. The other reference I checked also, is non-negotiable, so, there was one Antoni Dunin distinguished by a Virtuti Militari cross after the war. Elonka just misplaced the references. No big deal. Doesn't look like hoax to me. Still vote to keep it strong, even with NYT as secondary source this time. greg park avenue 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. There appear to be no independent sources which discuss Antoni Dunin, making it impossible to write an article without violating our source policies.Proabivouac 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

• Keep per military award. Not a WP:AUTO as the man is long since dead. Writing about a family member is not forbidden, as long as said content is presented in a factually backed, npov manner. Eli Thomas Reich was a close personal family friend and father to my godmother, no one has ever questioned me, berated me, nor AFD'd the article in the manner in which Elonka is being treated here. You people disgust me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Charming. Now I remember why I avoid AfD. Maybe the reason no one has bothered you about Eli Thomas Reich is that multiple independent sources are readily available. (In 5 minutes I found at least 5 NY Times articles.) I do family history research and I know why it is rarely suitable for Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with the particular author of this article. Thatcher131 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Calm, please. This is a good faith nomination. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Shame the lessons about vanity and family articles just don't seem to sink in. See continued comments from Elonka above in defense of this entry. Non-notable - delete. Brunonia 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  She's as entitled to make a case for notability as anyone. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. It's very hard to assume good faith when you've all but typed out "Elonka is stupid for writing about her family." Should she just sit back and take what people give to her? That's rather morbid. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of independent secondary sources. Epbr123 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Independent secondary source is here, No 1 in references. No 6 is another. Besides, we are talking about WWII hero who died in September 1939 when only Poland fought Nazi while all the world sit back. What else you need? A review in the Rolling Stone magazine? greg park avenue 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is too trivial. Ref 6 is about his father-in-law. Epbr123 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 has this to say about Antoni Dunin: "Dunin, Antoni." I suppose we could write, "Antoni Dunin was a recipient of the Polish Virtuti Militari award," but that's not enough to justify an article.Proabivouac 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go to the StandWithUs article and find me at least one independent secondary source in it. Then we may talk about justice. greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate it for deletion, and send me the heads up so I can weigh in. Of course it's possible that somebody will say, Antoni Dunin was kept, so StandWithUs must be kept, too. You have to start somewhere, and, that somewhere is inevitably the item which has been nominated.Proabivouac 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Epbr123 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Proabivouac, it's not my department to post AfDs, never made one. greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Antoni+Dunin%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp

Google books] has links to some things, but they're all in a foreign language. Anyone here read Polish? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Will try. Thanks! greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You were right. There is another independent source in form of a book by a very well known Polish writer Jerzy Korczak: Cóżeś ty za pani: o walkach armii "Poznań" 12-19 września 1939 r. - Page 240

by Jerzy Korczak - 1983 - 328 pages. And here is an exerpt from this book, unmistakenly our Antoni Dunin: W straży przedniej kolumny południowej szedł trzeci szwadron piętnastego pułku, którym dowodził porucznik Antoni Dunin. It means: In the first southern column of the 15th brigade went the 3rd squadron, which was led by Lt. Antoni Dunin.

[25] greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is sad as a lot of work goes into these pages and I have seen a lot of these family pages but I'm afraid they are of no interest or value to anyone not related to the subject. Dunin was probably a very nice and brave man and it is a sad story but even this coupled with being married to the niece of a saint does not make one notable. These sort of pages need to be bound up on real paper and given to his descendents who will value them but this is not what Wikipedia is for. The encyclopedia has to be known for being credible and providing valuable information on valuable subjects, there are many family tree and genealogy sites who would welcome these pages - why not take it there. Giano 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then shucks, I guess we need to start deleting every single Medal of Honor winner, Gold Star winner, Silver Star winner, Navy Cross winner, Victoria Cross winner, etc.... because 90% of them have as much claim to fame as this guy. This has nothing to do with decendancy, this has everything to do with attacking the article because of who wrote it, something I think you would be quite familiar with.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about fame. It's about notability. Epbr123 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the one verifiable tidbit about this guy is his getting this medal, isn't the obvious solution to merge him and all the others into some List of recipients of Virtuti Militari article? There's no way to have an actual bio article on this guy with such little verifiable info on it. For those of you obsessing over editors rather than content, knock it off. Don't assume other people can't see past the personalities, just because you can't. Friday (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, probably into Dunin (surname) or Rodryg Dunin. There is some verifiable information here specifically about this particular man. Not only the medal list but also the reference in Korczak's book on which unit he commanded. The Google Books search suggests that some patient work at a Polish library might yield more, though of course we can't keep it on that basis. A personal family history website is not an ideal source but I'm not sure it should be categorically ruled out either. For the sake of full disclosure I'll note that Elonka mentioned this AfD in a private discussion with me. I don't think that's canvassing since she had asked me for advice on this article before it was nominated and it was natural to follow up on that now. Besides, I don't even agree with her. Haukur 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added another secondary source to the article (J. Korczak). Three independent ones should be enough for this article about KIA 1939 Polish count to survive. greg park avenue 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of verifiable sources as to notability. MarkinBoston 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I believe that all VM recipients are notable as such, just like recipients of the Légion d'honneur or the Medal of Honor. Sure, some info on what did he get it for would be nice, but even without it the article is fine. Secondly, the problem of family web pages is much more simple to me. If the alternative is either to have a two-sentence stub linked only to external sources or a broader, better article with facts published on his family's website, I'd rather we went for the latter. //Halibutt 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subject is notable (royalty, recipient of medal of honor). --AndyFinkenstadt 21:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "As for AndyFinkenstadt, I see him on a daily basis (he works down the hall). I think I told him that I was going to be going up for RfA soon, when we went out for sushi last week."[26] Proabivouac 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're failing to assume good faith with your comment there. Back down a little and let him form his own opinion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Being royalty or the recipient of the medal of honor doesn't make someone notable. Being written about makes someone notable. Epbr123 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have already voted but this is a comment on the quality of the article, should it be decided to keep it, or the articles about any other Dunin family members. The article should be impartial, but right now it seems that the wording of the text is giving greater prominence to the individual than he actually merits. For instance, he was awarded the "prestigious" Virtuti Militari, he was a "nobleman," though as Thatcher pointed out, the term szlachta can be applied to 10-12 percent of the Polish population,i.e., 2.5-3 million people in 1939 (discounting ethnic minorities). Further examples include, "His brother was immortalized in the 1922 painting ..." as well as "great-niece of the man who would become ..." While he was killed in combat, we have no idea why he was awarded the Virtuti Militari--compare to articles about people who won the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross, where there is considerable detail about their heroism. IN fact, 66,000 Polish soldiers died in the invasion--what makes Dunin distinct? BTW, I could make the same case for the article about Rodryg Dunin, who is called "one of the most remarkable pioneers of progress in farming techniques and industry in Greater Poland." Finally, I have voted above to delete this article, but even if it does stay, it (and the related articles) should do away with the hyperbole and present a simple account of the man's life--not his father, his brother, his father-in-law, or his wife's great-uncle. The way it is written now is deceptive. He was not royalty, and he was not a recipient of the "medal of honor." Danny 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems notable enough... I wonder if this article would survive in the polish wiki? I think here there are far too many people expressing opinions on subjects they know far to little about. I also think that its wrong to claim OR here as obviously Elonka had to have sources to create the tree to begin with... EnsRedShirt 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, w/ condition - I do not agree that being of noble class makes him notable, however, the Virtuti Militari decoration does seem to help meet the WP:BIO suggested requirements. I am a bit confused about the ranking of the Virtuti Militari, because in the VM article it indicates the Order of the White Eagle is the highest award. I suspect it is the inclusion of civilians that separate the two distinctions and perhaps a clarification should be added to the two articles. My understanding is that the class of the VM is dependent upon rank, so the class he was awarded should not influence the decision of voters. Apparently the VM has been awarded a great number of times, over 8,400 from 1920-1939 alone (and over 1,600 previously from 1806-1815). This totals over 10,000 VM since its creation. This is compared to 3,444 MoH awards since creation in 1862 and 1,356 Victoria Cross awards since creation in 1856. It is true that there is a striking disproportion between the number of times that each respective government has awarded their "highest military award", but I think a historical prospective should also be taken into account. Poland was facing extinction (and temporarily was extinct) at the hands of an overwhelming force. To this end my condition would be to include in the article a RSed account of the reason for which Dunin was awarded the Virtuti Militari. My concern is that without knowing the full details, Dunin may have been awarded the VM out of a show of respect for sacrifice and not because he went above and beyond. Looking at the sheer number of VM awards during this period actually seems to decrease the notability of the award itself. However, it still remains the highest military award one can receive in Poland, so that distinction should be respected as well. Intuitively one would think that anyone who received the highest military award would have done something notable in order to receive it. While sacrificing his life for defense of his country is unquestionably an honorable act, there were in fact thousands more who sacrificed their lives as well and were not awarded the VM. So to that end, what did he do to receive the distinction? The article stands incomplete until this additional information is supplied with RS. If this information is unavailable (destroyed, etc.) I would regrettably feel the article should be removed until the information can be supplied. We should remember that it is not the AWARD which makes a person notable, but it is the DEED for which they were awarded that truly makes them notable. An awarded decoration is just a symbol, a shiny little badge, and many awardees often remark how little it means to them. It is the deed that makes them notable, not the button on their jacket. --Trippz 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are five independent secondary sources now, two supplied by Elonka, one by me and two by Halibutt. The reference No 8 supplied by Halibutt answers your question in full. See here. It's an article written by Juliusz Tym in a military journal. It's reconstruction of the fight at the river Bzura - one of the most bloody charges of this campaign (September '39), and even we Polish call it stupid, when Polish cavalry with sabres and light firearms stormed the German tanks, actually a suicide run. It'a a very rare example of heroism and Antoni Dunin was in the first line. It shows that this VM (granted posthumously of course) was well deserved. Thanks! greg park avenue 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Elonka's long posts and Trippz's points. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you agree with Trippz that the article should be deleted unless more sources are found? Epbr123 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More that "the Virtuti Militari decoration does seem to help meet the WP:BIO suggested requirements." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's hard to comprehend as an individual, but a ridiculous amount of people have a relative, or even several, that have accomplished things. A sense of family pride is inevitable no matter how objective you try to be. If the subject were notable by Wikipedia's standards, a completely unrelated person (and not someone that the original editor knows, either, as much as I hate to have to point that out) would have created the article. As Danny mentioned above, even the writing style and wording used seemed to be trying to "make the case" for notability even before it was questioned, which speaks volumes, in my opinion. Third party sources are needed; not a family tree, or sources that only verify the facts, but something that shows why these facts are important. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability isn't subjective. If this person has won the highest military award, then they are notable, per WP:BIO. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." If the tone of the article is incorrect, anyone can fix it. We don't delete articles because of tone. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that notability is objective, but I seriously question whether an award given three times as often as the Medal of Honor to members of a military a tiny fraction of the size of that of the United States' is a "significant recognized award or honor." If they gave out 100,000 Medals of Honor, we'd stop thinking of it as significant, but that's the effective ratio of the Virtuti to the Polish population. There clearly has to be a line somewhere: If Malawi announced that they were giving every soldier in its military its nation's highest military honor, would they all qualify under WP:BIO? THF 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I didn't take a position, because it's not clear whether he received the highest award. Apparently the Virtuti Militari has several flavors, some rare, and some not so much. We don't write articles about every Purple Heart and Bronze Star winner, though they may certainly be brave and worthy of being remembered. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm voting weak keep. My opinion is that this article just "barely" meets Notability guidelines. Nobility and recipients of notable awards would probably meet notability guidelines in my opinion. So the real question here revolves around the use of sources from Elonka Dunin, descendant of the topic of the article. I discussed that further in length on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as well. I agree with Wikidudeman's opinion. While I feel Elonka and her parents are clearly 100% notable, this falls into more dubious circumstances. However, due to awards he has received, I believe he at least qualifies as notable, if anything else. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep there isn't much verifiable material to justify much more than a permanent stub. I thought Friday's suggested merge to List of recipients of Virtuti Militari made some sense. Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article is well-sourced and subject is sufficiently notable as award recipient. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Notability (recipients of a country's highest award for gallantry are automatically considered notable).--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems to meet notability criteria. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin. The sourcing of this article has expanded considerably during this AfD. This should be borne in mind when determining the outcome of the discussion- early commentators were looking at a much weaker article. WjBscribe 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. If all you have is a handful of listings on-line which mention just the subject's name or other minor details in a single sentence, that doesnt qualify for notability. You have to have significant (non-trivial) coverage by multiple reliable sources in order to justify an article on Wikipedia. In the case of Antoni Dunin, there's not a single non-trivial reliable source. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". Since the coverage is trivial, the content could be merged into List of recipients of Virtuti Militari as some have suggested. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the Virtuti Militari award, I don't think multiple non-trivial sources are also required here. The sources seem to be enough to write a stub about him - there are some details of his military career (see source #8 - Juliusz Tym (2005). Kawaleria w bitwie nad Bzurą (Cavalry in the Battle of Bzura). Polonia Militaris. Retrieved on August 24, 2007) and the details of his marriage (sourced to the NewYork Times) for starters. Plus a fictional character based on him in a book by a notable Italian author. WjBscribe 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Jehochman mentioned above, its not clear if the award he won was of the highest rank. If it had been a significant award, reliable sources would have covered him in more detail than just putting him in a list of 10,000 other names. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been established that the level of award relates only to the number of men commanded so I'm not sure thats relevant. As to coverage - well of course most of it will be in Polish and on paper, which makes it difficult to dig up at short notice. Though given the surprising amount that has been turned up during this AfD I am sure more is out there. In the unlikely event that this article was deleted, I am sure it would end up being recreated in the future once more material has been located. There is a difference between material not having been found and it not existing - you seem very certain that it does not exist (I guess that helps your case) but the amount of mentions being found seems to indicate the contrary. WjBscribe 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There wasnt any "short notice". The article had been tagged asking people for more references since about a month now. 2) As I said, all the amount of mentions found have been trivial. Also, although I couldnt verify it, but an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia said that this award was given to 17,400 people in the 20th century and to a total of 25,000 people throughout history. Adding in his opinion, he also said that he believed that getting this award doesnt make someone automatically notable. He also said that very few people (less than 600) were given higher than the 5th ranking award, so there's a less than 2.4% chance that Antoni Dunin was given the highest ranking award. The article can always be recreated if there's is enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, but being one name in a list of 25,000 doesnt suggest imply notability in my opinion at this point and the article has existed long enough to give people the time to find non-trivial reliable sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link Matt! If only 600 people got higher than the 5th level award (and Shell Kinney has been able to confirm Dunin got a third level one [27]) that makes his award a lot more distinctive an accolade than I thought.... WjBscribe 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a 3rd level award, thats not the highest award so, it doesnt qualify for notability. If he had won the highest (level 1) award, then he would qualify for notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the discriminating criteria between the levels is number of men commanded (rather than different levels of heroism, valour etc.), there isn't much argument for restricting it to the first level ones only. The argument against including all of them was shear numbers, but you have reassured me that there are sufficiently few above level 5 that this isn't really a problem in this case. Whichever level he did get, it would have been the highest level available to his rank. WjBscribe 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt verify Shelly's claim of "number of men commanded", nor his claim that Antoni won the 3rd level award. All we know is that there's no reliable source that confirms the type of award that Antoni received, and whether he even commanded a group of men or was just a soldier. He could be commanding 3 men for all we know and then that wouldnt fall in line with the spirit of "nation's highest military award" (which is why they have 5 classes). Bottomline: we dont know what type of award he got. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not get carried away here Matt, ref #8 makes it pretty clear he wasn't just commanding 3 men... WjBscribe 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt find out anything about the number of men he commanded from the 8th ref. Regardless of the number of men commanded (even if he did), we agree that he did not receive the highest award. Note that award could also be: "Alternatively for staff officers for their cooperation with their commanders, that led to the final victory in a battle or war", so he could just have been awarded for being a single soldier and cooperating with his commanders. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I must agree with the rationale given by Thatcher among others. The article is quite misleading in that it seems to claim he won the highest military decoration awarded by a country, when in fact reading the above debate, it seems he won only a subordinate award (i.e. not the "highest decoration"). ugen64 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Merge per Haukur, but that is a normal editing action, not a deletion). It would be nice to have a source for the class of tne Virtuti Militari, and the reason for it; but I see no reason to doubt the claim here that it is Class III, which would be unquestionably notable. (And such sources may exist; if the Polish Government has the documentation of the Order, they may well have published it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PMAnderson and others; I see multiple reliable sources, especially since the expansion. A merge might be more approriate; I think merges should be used more often in non-fiction topics, because they strengthen ideas into an greater whole that has a better chance of showing solid notability. In addition: lots of people have worked hard on it, WP:N is a guideline (not policy), it is useful/interesting, other similar articles exist, notability is inherited, it does not do any harm, Wikipedia should be about everything, fame, the google test, repeated nominations, etc. — Deckiller 02:19, 27 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems[edit]

Plastic pressure pipe systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unencyclopedic content with uncorrectable vandalism, and possible advertisement. I am requesting a delete and salt. This article was started by a sockfarm master who was trying to use WP as a pro and con how-to and professional reference on installing piping systems, through copyvio from incorrectly attributed sources in an admittedly niche area, and was playing good hand bad hand on said articles. Types of sources used indicated that the user was likely a professional pipe installer who wanted to eventually direct people to his business. Once the copyvio was cleared out, there is nothing of value in the article (most materials have their own article), and for over two weeks, no one has expressed any interest in editing the article. Due to the puppetry and the forks that have been created in the meantime (Plastic piping systems with identical content), I would also like the article to be salted. MSJapan 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any WP:ANI threads to point to? Is the editor now banned? If so WP:CSD#G5 should be sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of checkusers. The socks were indef blocked, but this was created before the block if I remember correctly, so G5 wouldn't be applicable.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, delete as content fork. Probably little value in a redirect to plastic piping systems. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect would be pointless as I deleted plastic piping systems; it was more of the SPA's spamming.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No amount of vandalism is uncorrectable. The article needs to be sourced, yes, otherwise, it looks to be factual and useful. I don't see anything in there that's unencyclopedic - that word is just too vague to be a reason for deletion. Put citation tags in it, and keep. The Transhumanist    18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this gets sourced before the close of this AFD. I agree with Transhumanist that this looks factual and useful, but it isn't verifiable at this point. Furthermore, this text is largely a carryover from article versions that were, as far as I can tell, written by a now blocked SPA sockpuppeteer who apparently fabricated sources; even WP:AGF I have a hard time taking anything in this article strictly on face value.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Transhumanist. Vandalism can be corrected and the topic seems encyclopedic, but needs references. Dbromage [Talk] 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is encyclopedic (see platform framing and balloon framing for construction articles). I admit, there is overlap with articles like water pipe and plumbing, but this article does focus on a specific type of piping system. It currently doesn't read like an ad, and I think references are the only real problem, but that can be fixed. 171.71.37.207 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable (plastics are increasingly being used instead of metals in many applications) and the entry is of use to anyone seeking information on it. A bad article is better than no article! Sidefall 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is not a good article yet, but that applies to many articles. We need to be wary of duplication, but this article has a good potential, as long as it is not allowed to become qan advertising vehicle for one particular commercial interest. Peterkingiron 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, and AfD is not clean-up. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Notable topic, either from chemical or plumbing view, just poorly written Mbisanz 21:59, 30 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. --Coredesat 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality film[edit]

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

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT). This inadequately sourced stub also comes across as original research. Where does the idea originate? Wryspy 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Verify, or delete - most stubs are little more than definitions. That's why we call them stubs. But this one looks like it may be a non-notable neologism. So it should be verified as notable, or be sent to the wiki-graveyard. See WP:A. The Transhumanist    17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to keep - Shankbone has found references that verify it. The situation as it stands is this: the term exists, the term is notable, the genre the term refers to exists, the genre is notable. This is a no-brainer. Keep. The Transhumanist    21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - a burgeoning genre, with enough Google hits (over 30,000) that the subject can be fleshed out. It's a stub, not a dictionary entry, and worth expanding. By the way, can we make use of edit summaries, especially when we are doing an AfD? --David Shankbone 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind? The Transhumanist   

• Keep: Has sources as far as I can tell, but from what I can tell not having sources isn't enough of reason to delete, as many around here say to tag as refs needed, which always does lots of good, right? How many articles have that tag now? Yeah, that's effective. IvoShandor 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is no non-trivial reliable coverage in a secondary source, which in wikipedia parlance means no notability. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many of the google hits do not use the term in this sense. The first page of results is mostly junk with only one or possibly two uses of the term in this sense. More of the hits use the term as a simple synonym for "documentary". Besides, a collection of citations to mere use of a term cannot justify an article (think of the "Allegations of apartheid..." series). No non-trivial reliable sources seem to exist here. I think that the Category:Reality films that has been added to several articles should also be deleted. Few references support this categorization, which appears to be a neologism in any case. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The apartheid series isn't really a good comparison because most of that nonsense represented unpublished synthesis, OR, not even trivial coverage, just use of the word "apartheid" once or twice in some of them. Of course, google hits aren't necessarily an indication of anything at all. IvoShandor 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this isn't unpublished synthesis, this may be trivial coverage, but the phrase reality films does exist in the context the article puts it in, not like the apartheid articles, which used sources that said apartheid on Page 100 and never said anything about allegations against some of the nations. Those articles were/are a WP:POINT violation anyway.IvoShandor 18:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get into it, but I didn't pick this analogy at random. There is an arguably POINTy backstory to this article as well. It exists in part because of a dispute about whether films like Jackass are documentaries. As you can tell, the partisans have found more sources indicating that it's a documentary than sources labelling it with this neologism. That's why the article asserts—without citation (OR)—that Jackass is a reality film in spite of no sources to that effect. Davids comment below is enlightening. User thinks it would be inappropriate to label Jackass flatly as a documentary, and I agree. But that does not make this categorization (as a new "entity") any less OR. Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was definitely not created to make a POINT. Assume a little good faith please. And here's Joel Stein in Time Magazine: "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass proved, there's an audience willing to pay $9 for what it gets free on television." Again, there's enough out there that the article deserves stub status to be fleshed out. It's not just a "POINT" article, and I don't create POINT articles, thank you very much. --David Shankbone 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not POINT, but being born of a far-removed Michael Moore dispute does not inspire confidence. Incidentally, this neologism—when it is mentioned—is rarely mentioned apart from reality TV (has no independent notability). As suggested on the talk page, I also think it would be acceptable to redirect to reality TV. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a neologism when I'm finding articles going back 4 and a half years using it to describe Jackass The Movie. It is often used in conjunction with reality television because it springs from it, but that doesn't mean it belongs on that article. It's a stub, an appropriate one. It's a term used often, and although WP:CRYSTAL is at play, I dare say will be a burgeoning new genre for the reasons Joel Klein pointed out back in April 2003. --David Shankbone 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age doesn't matter when there is no non-trivial coverage of the term. There are presumably invented words from 500 years ago that do not deserve articles. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article and category came from a disagreement, but one that I think fleshes out the issue well: What are films such as Jackass The Movie and The Real World Cancun? Are they documentaries, in the same category as Capturing the Friedmans, March of the Penguins and Ken Burns's work, or are they something different? If they are documentaries, are they a sub-genre of documentary or their own entity (e.g., a Reality film)? It's worthwhile to research and flesh out, which is the reason for my strong keep. I think it strikes most people odd that Jackass Number Two is being called a documentary, whether it technically fits that definition or not. Unfortunately, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's definition is unhelpful. --David Shankbone 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment - It's the movie industry counterpart to the reality genre on TV. Jackass, for example is a reality TV show. It only makes sense that Jackass on the big screen is still of the reality genre. The medium has changed, not the content. The Transhumanist    22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious how the Academy will treat these movies. I doubt that any of them will make it to be finalists for awards, but if so, would they be under the documentary category? Would it fall under an unfiltered performance, which would disqualify it? How should this question be treated in a non-OR way on the Reality film article (if at all)? --David Shankbone 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's no extant analysis, we can't introduce it here. Cool Hand Luke 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject seems reasonable enough for an article, and decently cited. I really don't see how this is a synthesis of information. Calgary 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". The refs only show instances of the term being used Corpx 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. Shoester 06:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Reality television. "Reality film" is a neologism which could have many different interpretations and I don't think the sources are non-trivial coverage of the genre/supposed genre. As far as I can tell, it's a slang term for films that came from reality TV shows and/or a gimmick created by New Line Cinema to promote The Real Cancun. I've left a comment on the talk page which I think is much too long to include here. --Pixelface 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per neologism comments. A lot of people seem to want to separate this out from what they consider a documentary film, without actually taking the time out to clarify their thoughts on the difference. It's worth noting that a whole genre of documentaries, the cinema verite movement, was similarly spurned for a time as "not documentary" because of their fly-on-the-wall approach which set them apart from the predominant classic documentary style (with lots of voiceover), which itself emerged from newsreels. Documentary, non-fiction, reality - different people have ideas about the exclusiveness of these terms and what they do and don't apply to. Documentary tends to be the predominant English usage; this certainly does not preclude further division into genre and period, given some critical secondary sources to refer to. Girolamo Savonarola 17:24, 24 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 trainwreck. Please relist seperately. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (magazine)[edit]

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

There has been an argument over the notability of student newspapers. So as such I'm submitting these Australian student newspapers for a more general opinion. I am personally neutral CitiCat ^♫ 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am including the following additional articles:[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent Student Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Lot's Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabelais Student Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Seed (student newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The Student Leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tabula Rasa (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

The Western Onion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Delete all view except Keep view on Rabelais Student Media that was involved in a notable controversy. I don't think that this mass AFD will settle any issue since such mass nominations too often result in a train smash. In my view articles should be considered individually. Having said that I have gone through each of the articles. Student newspapers have no inherent notability. As with any other publication they need to meet WP:N. This means that there should be multiple secondary sources attesting to notability. Such sources should not be passing mentions of the publication but sources that review the publication in a meaningful way. None of these have such sources. Being accessible through a state or national library is not particularly significant; many such major libraries have a policy of keeping all publications in their area. Reprinting controversies, as some have done with the Rabelais does not provide reflective notability. Bridgeplayer 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Hamfisted attempt at self-justification from an admin stung by criticism. alexis+kate=? 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]