Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 9

< November 8	November 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Manning

Shameless vanity / self-promotion. Written by user:Joelmanning. -- RHaworth 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The use of the word "vanity" as a reason for deletion is now strongly discouraged per WP:COI#Importance of civility. Please instead use "Conflict of interest". Jpe|ob 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've already started work wikifying and copyediting this article. Just because an article is vanity/not NPOV doesn't mean it's not a valid article. With some work, this could become a decent article. [Iridescence] talk • contrib 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be an up and coming star, has an IMDb entry and a personal website, comes up top on Google search, and quite possibly recognisable from his movie appearances. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep -- Fairly obvious self promotion, but person seems to be edging towards notable. As such some claims, such as television appearences, need to be cited. Otherwise Delete -- wtfunkymonkey 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Very weak keep Despite obvious self-promotion, and thanks to major cleanup by Iridescence. He is clearly notable. Still needs an opening sentence ("Joel Manning is an American actor/dancer, blah blah blah..."). Oh, and hand slap user:Joelmanning. Wavy G 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. - Akaneon 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh? Wavy G 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User was indef-blocked for trolling and personal attacks. Please disregard. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails the central requirement of WP:BIO. No evidence of multiple features in national cultural publications. Citing an IMDB listing and a personal website are both of relatively little value under this guideline. I googled several pages deep and found no media mentions in notable publications, and not much that isn't either an automatic listing (IMDB) or Joel Manning-created content. There's no independent fan website. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not an actor/dancer database, regardless of whether an article is self-promotional in nature. This subject shows no indication of coming close to passing WP:BIO with his various bit parts/extra roles. He is not "clearly notable". Look at his IMDB entry - "Dancer" (in Clerks II and Jackass 2 and others) and "Lovin' Spoonfull #2 Bass Player" and "Zombie #2" etc. are not major roles. The "Mike Nesmith" role is also a bit part or at best a minor speaking role in one episode[1]. So he is liked enough by the producers of American Dreams that they gave him bit part roles on more than one episode. He also got a couple of single episode bit parts (as a background dancer for a single scene in the most recent[2]) on not-well-known sitcoms. This is not encyclopedically notable. Its not notable enough for a magazine. This is not even "up and coming" unless we work for his agent (and besides, no crystal balling on Wikipedia). Allowing articles like this would mean open season on Wikipedia for every struggling/"up and coming" Hollywood actor with a couple of TV bit part credits on their resume Bwithh 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; the article is somewhat deceptive. At first glance, he appears to have an impressive body of work. I don't know what the show "American Dreams" is about, but I assumed from reading this that he had some kind of recurring role playing various celebrities (?). And stating that he is in Clerks II and Jackass II doesn't help. I guess I was also assuming more significance on this accident he had (overcoming disability to return to acting, etc.), but upon second glance it appears to just be filler. Changing my vote, unless something more noteworthy can be provided. Wavy G 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around a bit and it looks like American Dreams had a gimmick that every episode, or most episodes, they would recreate musical acts that appeared in the 1960s TV music show American Bandstand - these do not seem necessarily to have anything to do with the plotline of the American Dreams episode (maybe some "theme" resonance). In an episode in the third season, a performance by The Monkees on Bandstand is recreated. It looks Joel Manning was part of this performance (with 3 others) as Mike Nesmith. Bwithh 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Bwithh. Just an extra in a couple of movies. 1 google result (IMDB). article is self promotion -- Coasttocoast 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "bit part" not just extra roles. ( According to your own blog entry, your most recent sitcom dance role was not a major role. We're unfamiliar with SAG terminology, but this is an encyclopedia, not a SAG database. Okay, let's call your roles "principal roles as defined by SAG", but there's still no encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bwithh. TJ Spyke 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh and the fact he has never been mentioned in a newspaper indexed by NewsBank. The only mention outside IMDB and Wikipedia I found was on TV.com[3], which like IMDB, indexes everyone who ever steps foot inside a studio. -newkai t-c 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the self-promotion, this person is mildly notable. Atlantis Hawk 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bwithh, et al. Robertissimo 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This up and coming actor does not yet meet the notability requirements, as per Bwithh and CoastToCoast --Amists 10:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious self-promotion vanity and not much mention in the internet, unless more sources (must be reliable) are being cited. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-despite hairsplitting by author on what constitutes an "extra", does not meet WP:BIO and has not played notable roles. Seraphimblade 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage, fails WP:BIO. Listing in IMDB alone is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. Joel, please see my contribution to your talk page. WMMartin 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per WP:BIO. Also for slightly smarmy tone regarding our ignorance about SAG. Please list your biography with them. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO. Also, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there's no reason to have an article on an actor until they have established themselves. We aren't in the business of predicting who will get big (or for that matter of giving free publicity). →Bobby← 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- seems reasonably notable -Toptomcat 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI issues aside, he falls short of notability. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bits parts are not sufficient notability. No reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly non notable and fails WP:BIO. Its a puff piece. scope_creep 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh and per WP:BIO. Xdenizen 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and has WP:COI issues. Reads like a promo. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bwithh. No way is the kid notable......yet. Ohconfucius 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per Bwithh. Good notability research, congrats. Moreschi 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh's arguments for non-notability. Extras aren't actors.Montco 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- a mix of self-promotion, sob story and basic facts that belong on imdb. Pete Fenelon 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Rap Show

A non-notable radio show on a possibly-notable radio station in Portsmouth. I myself haven't heard of this, and am from the Portsmouth area and into my hip-hop. It must be, AFAIK, a pretty underground thing. --Dangherous 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I can't decide. It sounds half notable, but then again, it may not be. Someone definitely needs to polish & wikify it though... Spawn Man 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local radio show that was heard in one town for (apprarently) one year? Wavy G 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a community/pirate radio that ran on and off in the early 90s? I don't doubt it existed, but it is not-notable enough to warrant an article. And the article is padded by 'where are they now' of the again non-notable DJs. --Steve 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It seems notable (to a point), but I don't think any more information will be found to make the article worth keeping. [Iridescence] talk • contrib 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and wiki, else delete. per >talk -- wtfunkymonkey 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely pointless article. --Stenun 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even putting aside the bias and lack of verification, the radio show is still not notable. →Bobby← 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Xdenizen 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-textures

Non-notable graphics technique used in one game Steve 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Poorly written article on a extremely non notable technique -- wtfunkymonkey 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "invented by a man on..." Devotchka 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Stenun 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why need this be deleted just because you guys don't like it. What a snobby little community Wikipedia has become.

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing much to say about this. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not out of any snobbery, but because it fails WP:V. -- Whpq 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its could be a genuine technique. Give the editor a chance to expand and provide notable sources. scope_creep 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomnination. Xdenizen 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimateeconomics

Non-notable neologism, seems to be created by the author. Contested prod. Amarkov ^babble 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, nonsense, NN, Neo, OR --Steve 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is complete nonsense, if not a hoax. [Iridescence] talk • contrib 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note article's creator has also started Ultimateeconomic --Steve 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Without hesitation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SNOW.--Hús ö nd 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Stenun 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, again [4], as nonsense. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Ultimateeconomic as above. Robovski 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete as utternonsense. I'll add thetag and stop trying to badlycompound my verbiage. =) --Dennisthe2 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above.Xeinart 05:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sarkis

This does not appear to pass WP:BIO. The only references given are one article about Sarkis in a University of Florida college paper...and Sarkis works at the University of Florida. Of the other two, one mentions Sarkis but she is by no means the primary subject. The other just lists recent books and has a brief paragraph about her book. None of those, in my opinion, add up to Sarkis being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. 97 unique Google hits for "Stephanie Sarkis" and a mere 70 unique hits for "Stephanie Moulton Sarkis". Additionally, the creators of the aritlce (one registered, one anonymous) have only edited in reference to this person. This may also be a case of WP:VAIN. The fact that one of the external links is to the publicist of Sarkis makes this look even more like advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, appears to be a vanity article to me -- wtfunkymonkey 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The publishing house is a legitimate specialist in psychology books, so it's not a vanity book. However, her book was published this year, and it's not on their in-house bestseller list. She's also only an adjunct assistant professor, which means not academically notable. If the book does well, or she writes more, then maybe. But not yet. .... Note, the anon ip editor resolves to Orlando, and she's from Gainesville. I'd bet it's a well-intentioned friend or family member who wrote this. Derex 10:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not academically notable per above, if there are more sources in the future it would be worthy, but not yet... --SunStar Net 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability & coverage concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would make a fine professor's bio on a college's webpage, but it is simply not about a notable enough subject for Wikipedia. →Bobby← 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy Close as per nomination. scope_creep 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Appears to be CoI and I have doubts as to whether it passes WP:BIO. Xdenizen 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unpublished work not yet listed penned by an associate professor seems to fail criteria for WP:BIO and the article smacks of WP:SPAM.--Dakota 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There must be reviews not available online. The book was released in January 2006, and ranks 5,537 per Amazon. Ohconfucius 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stephanie Moulton Sarkis redirects to Stephanie Sarkis. If the latter gets deleted, so should the former. --Lijnema 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Show Sucks

This article is about a streaming service that, according to the article, had several hundred subscribers and streams; it would appear that its main claim to fame was being shut down by the MPAA back in July. I provided links to the guidelines for reliable sources, WP:WEB (which I think is the closest to it, though WP:CORP would be close too), for the editor to work with, but only one potential source came forward. The editor said on the talk page he didn't feel it would meet the guidelines; I'm bringing it here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. A google search for "Every Show Sucks" TV gets 35 unique hits, almost all are blogs. —Mitaphane _talk 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's fine it doesn't belong here --Mckeznak 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article's main contributor acknowledging that it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Wavy G 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominationXeinart 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website, the lack of Google hits explains its lack of notability outside its own website or some ads and Wikipedia with its mirrors. Doesn't need an article here. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its really that much of a problem, then go ahead and delete it. However, this service survived for YEARS because it was descreet. Hense the lack of resources. At the time of its closure it had hundreds of subscribers but well over 35,000 registered users, it was more than just a little thing famous for being closed down. With TV moving ever more twords internet streaming it important that ESS be noted as the first HIGH QUALITY streaming network, even if in the end it was not to be. --pongluver 10:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brearley High School

Non-notable school, per WP:SCHOOL (which is a guideline), has only two notable alumni, a football player and recent porn star. I don't doubt the school verifiably exists but it is not notable enough for an article. Prod was contested with "consensus is public high schools are notable by definition" Steve 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proffered AfD justification contradicts itself: WP:SCHOOL criteria specifies #6) "The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)." Both individuals have articles in compliance with WP:BIO. Perhaps you might want to start by having those articles deleted first via AfD, and then come back to this one. Alansohn 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Furthermore, the school has been covered by multiple, independent, verifiable, non-trivial works in a major newspaper, in compliance with criterion 1, and is one of 16 out of 1000+ schools in teh state of New Jersey that participates in an inter-district admissions plan, which covers criterion 4. What part of WP:SCHOOL does this school not meet? Alansohn 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And just in case anyone is confused, WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline. -- Visviva 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SCHOOL is the standard that was used to justify deleting this article. The article clearly and explicitly passes the standard the nominator incorrectly claims that it fails. Alansohn 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not nearly notable enough. I have no idea who came up with the idea that high schools are automatically notable, but it's stupid. -Amarkov ^babble 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Schools are inherently notable. -- Librarianofages 01:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saying it won't make it so, and you might want to take at some recent AfDs where the closing admins didn't think very highly of the claim. In fact, schools have recently been deleted. JoshuaZ 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Only notable schools are inherently notable, and the existence of this one - which is largely all that's proven by the sources and a quick Google - doesn't make it notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak keep - The fact that Siragusa attended it gets it over the proposed guideline. Again, as with a number of schools, this may demonstrate a flaw in the proposal rather than the notability of the school, but this isn't the place to hash that out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having looked at this a little more, we'll be breaking off the tiniest tip of the iceberg if this one gets deleted, given the List of high schools in New Jersey. Most that I looked at are as non-notable as the above. --Steve 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are almost always notable. Middle schools and primary schools are rarely notable. Why does someone try to change this precedent every day on Afd? --- RockMFR 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we believe it's wrong, maybe? There is no reason why schools should be inherently notable, any more than parks should be. -Amarkov ^babble 02:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, merely a comment: if your aim is to reverse the attitude that high schools are assumed notable, might I suggest that you propose a policy change, ratehr than sniping at individual articles to try to establish a precedent, when, if there is one thing Wiki~ isn't, it's precedent-driven. Of course, if you're one of the Cabal, then it doesn't matter, because what you say is Wiki-law, and no one is allowed to dissent. -- Simon Cursitor

There isn't any "policy" that all high schools are notable, simply a precedent in that many of their AfDs end in no consensus keeps or outright keeps. But deletions do occasionally occur. JoshuaZ 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Football and porn? I think that is enough, we are not made of paper after all. Oh, and WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline, not a guideline. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True, it's only a proposed guideline and not the real McCoy yet. That said, it's the nearest thing to an empirical determination of notability of schools that we have. Additionally, per WP:RS, we need more than just proof of existence for the school to be notable even if we overlook WP:SCHOOLS. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what's amazing? Anytime a school meets some stupid criterion of WP:SCHOOL, school inclusionists say "keep because it passes WP:SCHOOL," but anytime a school manages to not meet the loosest of criteria, school inclusionists bring up how WP:SCHOOL can't be used because it isn't policy (even though they want it to be policy because it would allow 99.9% of schools to be kept). -- Kicking222 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert notability.--Hús ö nd 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keeps †he Bread 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All Google results [5] point to either government reports (which are indiscriminate regarding notability) or trivial mentions of the school. Even if fully expanded the article will never become more than a carbon copy of the school's website. Delete. Kavadi carrier 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google is not the sum of all knowledge. There have to be local newspaper articles out there. And I think Tony Siragusa is a big enough name to give this school notability. When's the last time a high school got deleted, anyway? Zagalejo 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has 235 mentions by its full name, with "high school" (excludes "School X plays David Brearley today"), in NewsBank since 2000. This includes mentions in The Star-Ledger, Asbury Park Press, Burlington County Times, Staten Island Advance, and a bunch more. -newkai t-c 05:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent example of why one should be carefull using search engines to deny notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, no it isn't. It's an example of how not to use search engines to assert notability. It's just an argument from counting search engine hits again, but simply using a different search engine to the usual one. In contrast Kavadi carrier, above, has actually read what xyr chosen search engine turned up. If Newkai does the same, then xe will have made a proper case. Uncle G 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of those articles are mere mentions, that don't actually give any in-depth information about the school? And how many are in-depth articles about the school? Please cite them. If you can cite multiple in-depth articles that don't just mention the school but actually are detailed articles about the school, you can demonstrate that the WP:SCHOOL criteria are satisfied (and, at the same time, provide a proper basis for writing an article). You haven't actually made that case yet. All that you have done so far is count search engine hits. Counting search engine hits isn't research. Actually reading the articles that the search engine turns up is research. Uncle G 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider actual newspaper articles "search engine hits". While it's true that just about all, if not completely all of the articles mention the school in passing, it indicates that it's an important ___location in New Jersey. If someone is reading a newspaper article and the school's name comes up, where are they going to go for more information? Wikipedia. -newkai t-c 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Also, I do not buy that BS that all high schools are inherently notable, they have to PROOVE why they are notable. I'm sick of these people who vote "Keep" on every article with school in its name. TJ Spyke 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely per precedent. As a general rule, to simply say delete because you disagree with an Overwhelming Precedent is bad form. As has been said, we're not made of paper. We have the capacity to handle such articles, and it's somewhat akin to trolling to nominate all such articles for deletion disregarding precedent. Precedent, while not explicitly, is a very good guide.Xeinart 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeinart is wise.

- Actually, that's exactly backwards. It's the invocation of precedent, which is simply the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument once again, which is bad form. Every subject should be considered on its own merits. I suggest that you discard the idea of precedent and instead follow the example of Newkai above, who actually has the right idea but simply hasn't followed it through and made a proper case yet. Uncle G 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry it took so long to respond to this, I only just read it. Firstly, at the risk of coming off as way too pretentious for my own good, I ask you to use terms properly. What you described is not fallacious at all. Having said that, the gist of precedent is not "If article X then article Y", it's "If the merits of article X are the same as the merits of article Y, article X was kept, and merits are the determining factor in a keep or do not situation, then article Y should be kept." I hope that helps to clarify.Xeinart 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just want to say, excellent clarification. If only more editors could articulatly clirify their position, then there would be only real conflicts, not merely percieved ones. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:School, and why do people think its enough to say 'keep' with the assertion 'All schools are inherently notable'? Are they? Why? Justify yourself. Amists 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Jcuk 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kavadi. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Besides, if we're to lean so heavily on WP:V and WP:RS when discussing people, websites, wikis, bands, etc. (and I'm not saying that's a bad idea), then I don't see why schools should be excluded. Shimeru 10:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all schools are notable, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. As long it has a notable alumni, that's good enough. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia does not in any way justify the claim that 'All schools are notable'. I could equally invoke WP:NOT a directory to argue the other way. Why are all schools inherently notable. Justify yourself. Or do you mean 'All schools with a notable ex-student are notable, thus satisfying wp:school'? You have made two different claims with your two sentences Amists 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline, in spite of the nominator's misguided attempts to pass it off as one. The well established precedent is that these kinds of articles are kept. No rational is advanced for deletion. The topic is encyclopaedic and verifiable. I'm not sure what else there is to say. WilyD 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, how I hate these school articles... But I know when I'm beaten. Wikipedia has become infested with non-notable school articles, and this is another one. But there's a claque that votes to keep any article with the word "school" in the title, and they seem to outweigh the ( slightly less organised ) bunch of anti-"school" people, so the cruft accumulates. The entire issue has become a holy war for some people, so the best thing to do is just to let them have their way. In twenty or thirty years the issue will have died down, and the next generation can work out what to do. I reckon there are about 40-50 dedicated "any school is notable" people, and they can't possibly keep all the school articles updated reliably and efficiently, so in a couple of decades someone will suggest hiving off all the school articles to a separate directory, and the facts on the ground at that time will drive the case. In the meantime, let them have their victory: it's a poisoned chalice. WMMartin 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these articles on Factiva. Most are written by the same person and come from the same newspaper, but they are about the school.
- Jett, Jason. "Harmonic convergence - Brearley band rising to hit crescendo". The Star Ledger. 18 May 2005. p. 19.
- Jett, Jason. "Corporate courting - Apprentice goes to school". The Star Ledger. 12 May 2005. p. 21
- Jett, Jason. "Catapulting into golfing ingenuity - Calculus students have ball in version of 'Junkyard Wars'". The Star Ledger. 15 June 2004.
- Russo, Lorie. "Two school projects fight prejudice". The Star-Ledger. 7 June 2001. p. 1
- Jett, Jason. "Charges of politics surround report on performance at Brearley". The Star Ledger. 10 April 2001. p. 39
- Jett, Jason. "School choice eases student shortage - State program boosts enrollment at Kenilworth's David Brearley high". The Star Ledger 23 April 2000. p. 33.
- Spotto, MaryAnn. "Judge: School board did not violate student vandal's rights". The Star-Ledger. 12 January 1999. p. 39
- Ginsburg, Elisabeth. "This Town Will Die Without Our School". The New York Times. 6 June 1993. p. 1 Zagalejo 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I am not going to 'vote' either way here, as I've gotten tired of these AfD's for high schools (and I typically support the AfD's and strongly feel that all high schools are NOT inherently notable), I did just want to make the comment that newspaper articles, especially local ones, are not good sources for proving notability for the simple reason that virtually all schools, including middle schools and elementary schools, are going to have numerous articles about them specifically in their local papers. All schools are important enough to the locals to get discussed regularly in the local papers; then again, so are all hospitals and pretty much all restaurants too, and we don't have articles on them... --The Way 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people on AfDs appeal to standards such as WP:SCHOOLS, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc, and then try to manufacture new qualifications that are simply unstated in the guidelines in question? WP:SCHOOLS first qualification states that "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." I see nothing that specifies the size or nature of the publications that would merit inclusion. Furthermore, both publications mentioned -- The Star-Ledger and The New York Times -- are major regional and national newspapers of unimpeachable notability. That the "multiple non-trivial published works" clause of WP:SCHOOLS has been met is undeniable (but it will be denied anyway). Alansohn 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the reasons posted above, I'd also point out that the article is young and will likely grow as more people come across it on this debate. School's are an important (and yes, notable) part of our culture, and it's kind of depressing to see good potential articles get nominated for deletion before they even have a chance to grow. →Bobby← 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notability, at least with respect to article importance, is in the eye of the beholder. This school meets my personal criteria for notability. Hence my preference. — RJH (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Right now, I'm not interested in this school. But maybe tomorrow, who knows, and then I will be glad to find an article about it. As argued before, any school is potentially interesting and thus notable enough to be kept.--Dontaskme 18:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools in Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others and also, if we were to for some reason accept WP:SCHOOL as a guideline, it would still pass #1, "The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself", per Zagalejo's comment above. Schi 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author of article) This article meets and exceeds the criteria for retention under WP:SCHOOL. We have near complete precedent for retention of high school articles. Rather than agreeing on this consensus, we will face the same cast of characters trying to delete this and other high school articles. Alansohn 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, non-notable, fails WP:SCHOOL Xdenizen 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Possible single purpose account: Xdenizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside of AfDs.
Abstain but suggest someone source the "notable alumni" section in the next few days or it will be removed as unverified.--Isotope23 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools have always been kept for over a year unless they violate WP:V, I still don't agree with them being kept, but oh well, live with it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way to change that is to not voice a keep opinion when you disagree with it. JoshuaZ 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per having notable alumni. JoshuaZ 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school, with barely notable alums. First, WP:SCHOOL failed. However, even if it were the WP Policy: I think that notable alumni is being too strictly adhered to, notable does not mean that the person has the merest notability for WP, but to be really notable. Otherwise, each WP BIO article creates instant notability for each of that person's schools, which may please the school-keepers, but in the event that the BIO is deleted, the schools go too unless there's some other notable in the alumni list, and school-keepers would not let that happen. Carlossuarez46 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not using WP:SCHOOLS -- the only attempt we have at generating broad Wikipedia consesnus on the issue -- then what standard are you using? It's not notable by what standard? Again, we have an appeal to a standard and a claim that the standard's explicit wording can't possibly be what it actually means. Alansohn 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there is for example WP:SCHOOLS3. Also, he might have person standard (few seem to mind when keepers use personal standards)JoshuaZ 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if we were to take WP:SCHOOLS3 seriously as a guideline -- even though it represents the consensus of one person, JoshuaZ, and has never been submitted to the Wikipedia masses for comment or approval -- this school clearly passes criteria 1 (independent coverage) and 3 (unique program), all of which are fully supported with reliable, verifiable, independent sources. I can't even figure out what criteria 5 even intends to mean: "The school has multiple alumni or staff members that, because of their activity in direct relation to the school, are notable enough to meet a biographical inclusion guideline such as WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC." What on earth does "because of their activity in direct relation to the school" mean, and who on earth WOULD be included by this criterion? Would Tony Siragusa -- who starred on the school's football team on his way to NFL -- pass this arbitrary test? Alansohn 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't assert that it didn't follow that proposed guideline (note that I expressed a keep opinion above)- as to the others you need to reread criteria 1 in that proposal which specifically rules out routine local coverage. As for it being in direct relation to the school- this seems to be being hashed out on the page. Furthermore, the proposal is not a "consensus of one person" but has a fair bit of support on the talk page right now. If you don't like the proposal you should go to the talk page and say so (as I invited people to do on the WP:SCHOOLS talk page). In any event, this is all irrelevant because again as I observed many poeple have personal standards (That said, I do agree that it would be helpful if he would give more explanation of what he was thinking) JoshuaZ 01:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that individuals should provide greater justification, keep or delete, referring to specific relevant Wikipedia standards and guidelines. I find your dismissal of this article's ability to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3 standard 1 on multiple, non-trivial coverage to be a significant demonstration of the non-viability of WP:SCHOOLS3 as an objective standard for determination of the viability of school articles. As the two articles cover respectively an anti-prejudice initiative exhibited at a local university and the details of the school's participation in a statewide inter-district initiative, it boggles my mind that these articles would be deemed "trivial" or "puff pieces" based on this proposed guideline. The "exclusion" of so-called "routine local coverage" -- which I would interpret to mean a sports result or a school play, but you seem to mean anything other than a multi-page in-depth article in a major national publication -- seems to be far too arbitrary to be a basis of judgment. If this is what criteria 1 in WP:SCHOOLS3 means, than it seems to be way too narrowly drawn to be useful or meaningful to weigh notability of schools. To put it succinctly, do the articles included in this article satisfy criterion 1, and if not, what would?Alansohn 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, you bring up good points. I think we are going to need to flesh out in more detail what precisely criterion 1 includes and excludes. JoshuaZ 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as The Way says "virtually all schools, including middle schools and elementary schools, are going to have numerous articles about them specifically in their local papers". This relatively substantial article actually include content from more than one such source, so there is no need to merge it anywhere. Also per WMMartin - treating this as a war isn't helping wikipedia. Kappa 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think anyone is treating this as a war. I can see only two users who might be in that category, and one currently has an RfC over it and the other one almost got blocked for spamming all the inclusionist editors in alphabetical order to tip a DRV. I'm therefore amused not "treating this as a war" is a reason to keep. JoshuaZ 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you weren't treating this as a war, neither of us would need to be here. Kappa 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that means what precisely? For one, I didn't AfD this article. Are you saying that my arguing strongly for the removal of non-notable schools is so serious that you feel a need to speak up to counter me? Or are you saying that without my stubborness no school AfDs would be happening and I am the tipping point to make them keep happening? Either of those is flattering but I doubt that is what you meant so explaining might be helpful. As for the notion that I am treating this as a war, I think my record on school AfDs almost speaks for itself. I'm many of them I have been persuaded to change my opinion on those specific schools. Even as I argue for deletion I help clean up schools and add sources (see for example Brickey Elementary. Indeed, even in this discussion, I had a productive discussion with Alansohn above which has forced me to reevaluate certain issues. If I thought I was at war, do you think I would have endorsed a few minutes ago the opinions I endorsed on your RfC? Don't confuse arguing and discussing a matter with "war" JoshuaZ 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article on signficant topic. There's easily sufficient coverage to support a complete and verified article. --Rob 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tiffany Rayne and Tony Siragusa are quite notable alumni. Englishrose 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the notable alumnis bios can mention what school they attended if its relevant, which it probably isn't. This is schoolcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because a) like most schools, it is a significant local institution, and b) it meets the proposed Schools criteria (which, however, do not have general acceptance). -- Visviva 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is obvious a notable high school erasure makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this school passes WP:SCHOOL and has notable alumni. T Rex | talk 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from meeting any deletion criteria. Quite the contrary actually, this article meets any and all relevent polices for inclusion. Silensor 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous reasons above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Walker (musician)

From speedy. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, as only one album out, and that on Hise Records, which seems not to exist. Although it must have been recorded in a real studio, given the backing musicians used. No notable tours etc. On the other hand, as the (apparently) main figure of the Mummble Ducks, you could call their record (on what seems to be a real label) an Andrew Walker record, add it to the Hise Records release, and claim to meet WP:MUSIC. They guy has been around awhile. But really: they guy has one record that seems to be self-released, and has presumably spent the last several years playing Austin dives. Dubious notabily at best. Herostratus 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nominator (clarifying my position as this is an procedural nomination, from speedy. But I also think the guy doesn't quite make the cut.) Herostratus 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable. Xdenizen 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. T Rex | talk 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per the snowball clause, WP:CSD A7 (unremarkable website without assertion of notability), and WP:CSD G11 (spam). The author's conduct relating to this AfD is entirely unacceptable, and he has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Due to the particularly contentious nature of this topic and high chance of attempted recreation, I am salting the article to prevent recreation. Alphachimp 15:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akaneon

This was a disputed speedy. It's a website with no sources, no assertion of significance, and an alexa ranking over 600K. The article was written by the creator of the site who objects to it being deleted. In the interest of fairness, I figured I'd bring it to Afd, even tho it looks like obvious self-promotion to me. Friday (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this search result to be rather interesting. Apparently, according to the webmaster/author, the google cabal is out to supress Akaneon. Our good friend here appears to think very highly of himself and his site. Either that or it's a classic case of trolling. -- wtfunkymonkey 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OF course he does. He insisted on believing that everyone who disagreed with him was a sockpuppet instead of admitting he might actually be wrong. -Amarkov ^babble 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should be commending him though. Based on the lack of keep votes here, it's obvious that he didn't stoop to sockpupppetry like we did. Right? Metros232 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A MySpace of the creator and a webpage stat site is not an assertion of notability. -Amarkov ^babble 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in original format and/or edit. The article uses entirely objective language. Traffic ranking is not the key to whether or not an article is legitimate, it is the factual and objective basis of the article itself. The assertion of significant is made in the comparison and contrast using objective terminology towards other sites. In no place, shape or form does bias occur, the article is written from a neutral tone. If there are no sources listed, please use the 'citation needed' tag where you feel citation is needed. I wrote the article myself, however the tone is non-promotional. If you would like to re-write the article yourself, I have offered to you several times to edit it. I request for 'the interest of fairness' that your deletion record be examined, as I believe that your primary interest is in deleting articles, not editing them. Your actual contribution record is very low and therefore your right to criticize someone else's contributions is in question. Once again I propose to all involved parties that if the article is not in accordance with policies that the specific questionable points be noted so that I can re-write it in a way that will be considered acceptable, otherwise, I propose that the article be left in original untouched format. - Akaneon 02:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, nothing would ever be deleted. You're missing the point. THE SUBJECT ITSELF IS NOT NOTABLE. Thus, ANY article on it is rule-breaking. -Amarkov ^babble 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion on the subject, however for purposes of neutrality the article should be left untouched as the subject matter is equal to the current listings of Facebook, MySpace, and orkut. Why is the subject matter non-notable if the site has equal objective factual content, and the listing has equal objective content to previously listed sites? I call into question your own bias and the fact that you are a close friend and associate of Friday as a potential discredit to your neutrality. Please allow some neutral sources to enter the debate and question for themselves which parts of the article are subjective or not in accordance with wiki policies and/or previous articles in the same vein. Prove that the content is irrelevant. - Akaneon 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following policies/guidelines/essays: WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:HORSELEGS, and WP:AGF. -Amarkov ^babble 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'm very familiar with them. Show me exactly where this article fails in terms of any of those guidelines, and I'll fix it instantly. Otherwise, this is simply your opinion that it is promotional and not encyclopedic. I want a direct citation from the article that indicates that it is purely promotional. The previous articles indicate that my article is also written correctly as it is over 80% identical to existing articles of the same type on the same subject. - Akaneon 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not understand them. It is the author's responsibility to assert notability and provide reliable sources. It is not our responsibility to prove that there are no reliable sources. Plus, it's the LACK of things in the article that fails WP:NOTE, so I can't provide something from the article. -Amarkov ^babble 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from WP:V - Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

* it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;

* it is not contentious;

* it is not unduly self-serving;

* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

- Akaneon 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to show for the record that WP:RS is disputed, WP:HORSELEGS is an essay, and WP:AGF is called into question by your actions on this article. - Akaneon 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is disputed as to EXTENT, not whether or not reliable sources are needed, I never said WP:HORSELEGS was not an essay, and it's kinda hard to assume good faith when you tell me that I am at fault for not finding better sources for the article. -Amarkov ^babble

User has been indefinitely blocked. Yanksox 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not everything goes into an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Illustrate how this is not notable; there are over 150 other sites listed using the same format used on this article at List_of_social_networking_sites. Please be specific. - Akaneon 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my language, but HOW THE HELL DOES FORMATTING MAKE SOMETHING NOTABLE?!? -Amarkov ^babble 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follows the rule of precedence. A duplicate of an existing notable article on a similar yet different topic with an almost identical article indicates through the precedent that the article is automatically notable and relevant. - Akaneon 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not subject to precedence, it changes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. If I create an article about me, but follow the format in say, Brad Pitt, that does not make ME notable, by precedent or otherwise. -Amarkov ^babble 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Devotchka 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention to users browsing this topic: Please do not create new entries on this topic unless you have evidence to contribute. This is a debate, not a vote. Thank you. - P.S., Devotchka, please stop spamming the edit section, thank you. - Akaneon 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Per nom means, for the same reasons the nominater put forward. One does not need to bring new information to the discussion to show one's support, as long as one's position is made clear. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they have new arguments to contribute, they can come, too. For that matter, they can post if they feel like it, regardless of what you or I say. -Amarkov ^babble 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it doesn't mean much when it's one or two guys who are all friends using multiple accounts to attempt to unduly position things in their favor. Also, per nom is a linking statement which must specifically indicate previous statements made. There is no statement made and therefore per nom is invalid in this case as per nom can only be used on a factual basis. No facts have been contributed to this article since creation that indicate specific reasons the article should be deleted. The only 'reasons' listed are simply opinions and not factually based and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt by readers of this topic. - Akaneon 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not all friends. I had no idea any of the people here existed before this AfD. Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are bad. And you can't declare certain arguments invalid. -Amarkov ^babble 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, and the admin who reads this page and makes a decision will take into account your concerns that we are all friends collaberating against you. That closing admin will also look that validity of you arguement that per nom is not a valid opinion.

You concerns will be considered, but I would not hold out much hope of them being accepted. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:WEB. Only assertion of notability seems to be "by association" (that someone from MySpace assisted in its creation), only other sources are primary. No secondary sources are cited per criterion 1 (multiple, secondary, non-trivial writeups), no assertion that the site has won a non-trivial award per criterion 2, no assertion of independent distribution per criterion 3. Per discussion above, "someone else got away with it" is not a notability criterion-that just may mean some other page may have slipped by and needs to be sent here as well. Myspace, however, is not one of those-it at least undisputedly meets rule 1 of WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I invoke CSD criteria A7 and G11, WP:N, and WP:WEB as reasons for deletion. And demanding that others provide proof for the "non-notability" of this article defies logic and violates WP:V where it explicitly states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. The site has only been around two months, and it doesn't seem to be attracting much attention from the world at large. eaolson 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above - Wikipedia isn't a link directory or an inexpensive advertizing solution. Non-notable. Robovski 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is valid as per WebBiographies and Decayenne. Most of the people in this topic are simply trying to get more speedy delete points for themselves rather than actually analyzing the article itself. Also, sockpuppetry is suspected. - Akaneon 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this person made the first keep vote way at the top, has removed others' comments, and has no support for accusations of sockpuppetry. -Amarkov ^babble 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many speedy delete points do I need to cash in for the toaster oven? eaolson 04:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you get a toaster oven? 3 speedy points will get you an AAAAAAAAA!. -Amarkov ^babble 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard contribution points and edits were more valuable, from a reliable source. I suspect jealousy amongst the "speedy-delete" teams on wikipedia, as they tend to focus more on deleting other peoples articles than creating new ones. Perhaps they're incapable? - Akaneon 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks and remember to assume good faith, please. A given AfD isn't really the appropriate place to debate deletion policy as a whole, but there are plenty of places that are. If you'd like me to direct you there please let me know. Seraphimblade 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking through the Google hits for Akaneon almost all I see is Craig spamming tons of people's MySpace pages saying "If you're a real friend you'll come join" etc. No notability offered through independent, reliable sources. Delete until this becomes a notable website. I also suggest that the author of the article read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Metros232 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. A new website is not notable, unless it's been featured in the press as having done something significantly different or something to distinguish itself from the crowd. This one hasn't. --Steve 04:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable, vanity article, added by user first thing after creating account yesterday. [6] He plainly has no other purpose here than to promote himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For one thing, the article comes off as incredibly spammy, and another, per the nom, it's not exactly notable. If notability were measured by association, I should get my own article here beyond my userpage because I have a Livejournal account - and you KNOW how much crud that would generate. --Dennisthe2 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete just by looking at the google results and impressive number of sources in the article. And after reading the author's comments, there's no doubt in my mind that this is a typical WP:OR, non-WP:V article with no intent but to promote its subject. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry; I understand your desire to create a website and use publicity, but please realize, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that has ever existed" (from policy page), nor is spam acceptable. I believe that you're trying to use it for advertisement. If your site becomes notable, you can post it here afterwards. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge delete. Had I found it first, it wouldn't have survived longer than I could type "WP:CSD#G11". — Saxifrage ✎ 05:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I consider it: Request to close per WP:SNOW. This doesn't need five days to resolve as there's only the spammer opposed (and it is clearly spam). I'd do it myself by I feel that someone else should since I already went and voted. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ultimately, this article is about something that nobody cares about. It's not newsworthy, it's not notable, and it has no place in an encyclopedia.Xeinart 06:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, vanity article. There's way more attention being paid to the AfD page than will ever be paid to the article itself. This is, by all means, a Speedy Delete. -- wtfunkymonkey 07:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria, should be speedied in fact. Wikipedia is not your advertising space. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not evident, WP:WEB. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not as if the deletion argument needed another supporter, but the article's creator was such a jerk to so many excellent, established users that I figured I'd tip the scale juuuust a bit more in favor of getting rid of this spam that fails WP:WEB in every way. -- Kicking222 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey T. Capo

Was prodded previously and prod was removed, fails WP:BIO nn notable, fails Ghits. WP:HOLE, WP:VSCA- authors name is JeffCapo. Dakota 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete What credentails in wrestling? You cite yourself as being NWA Ref of the year when you referred less than three shows in a majority of those years according to people in NWA and the total votes from all years combined doesn't even reach 50. You're barely an Indy ref and truly shouldn't be bogging down Wikipedia with this crap. If you really want to get yourself over, go out and ref more and stop hanging on to accolades voted by less than five people a year, three of which are your friends.
Speedy Delete (A7) NN, WP:COI.--Hús ö nd 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't seem too notable to me, but if there aren't many referees for the National Wrestling Association or whatever it was, then maybe he'd qualify for an entry.Devotchka 02:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete per Devotchka †he Bread 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:VAINXeinart 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have endeavoured to keep this article within the rules of Wikipedia and have talked to other Wikiepedians concerning this article and others I have written. I have put in references on the article per their advice. I have kept this article to my referee career only and have kept out any personal information. My credentails in the professional wrestling business are well documented and as I have previosly stated, I have added references, unlike other articles I have see (i.e Tommy Young). If there is any other resource I can add or any other references needed, please contact me directly.JeffCapo 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Duja. It was a repost. MER-C 11:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep tag

Warcraftcruft. Not encyclopedic and a nest for WP:NEO/WP:COI/WP:OR. Hús ö nd 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sheep Tag represents a popular trend among Warcraft III players, just like other well-known series such as DotA. The terms used refer to general tactics and are verifiable from Clan Behh, Clan aFC, and the Sheep Tag World Cup. Unmasker 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Warcraft III. Unencyclopedic as per User:Husond.--Dakota 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete At first inclination, I would say that this article should not be deleted. Only because it violates WP:NOR is it really a valid delete candidate... Even that's a bit sketch as he could likely a source with sufficient effort.Xeinart 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I note that the only article that links here is about sheep tags - that is, tags used for marking sheep. I also note that this is the recreation of a previously deleted article, - albeit previously at Sheep Tag, as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheep_Tag_(second_nomination) will show. In fact, it appears to be word-for-word identical to the deleted article. As such it is speediable. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Davis (writer)

Comes off as very well-established, but a quick look on Google--ONE result for "the old tratonians" and it's us--and on the Amazon.co.uk link he provided proves otherwise. Basically this guy is an unknown right now and definitely does not qualify for an entry. Devotchka 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - verging on speedy -- wtfunkymonkey 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blaisdon Publishing is a self-publishing(vanity) press, as well as per nom. -- Whpq 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shop assistant writes vanity-press novel, then gives himself an entry in Wikipedia... WMMartin 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. CoI and POV. Xdenizen 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postdlf 02:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the press coverage that was claimed but never shown. Normally a closer doesn't search, but normally people provide evidence rather than just vague claims of it. On a News search, I get one result and it's a simple mention that isn't very informative. On a regular google search, everything seems to be various random webpages either of credential check sites or other schools / practitioners. Gillian McKeith cites at least 2 articles from newspapers... this article cites nothing, none of the "news coverage" of McKeith mentions this group, let alone gives useful information on it. If anyone wants to present a reliable source on this topic, I'll undelete. W.marsh 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Drugless Practitioners

Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can source its being an accreditation mill. Again, appears to be ignored by the wider community, so that's likely to be impossible. Guy 09:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This group does not seem to be primarily an accreditation mill; it also certifies practitioners, and claims to function as a referral service, etc. It may be scam-like, but it appears markedly more notable than the entry above; for instance, it gets more than 39K Google hits, 713 unique - most of them schools and practitioners mentioning their certification. --Brianyoumans 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many press mentions per comments from Brianyoumans. Was in the news as part of the Gillian McKeith education scandal. Obviously important to document these groups given the number of schools who cite them as accreditors. Finally, should be kept per the list guidelines, which mandate articles for list components and this is included in our List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. --JJay 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) You listed NO sources for that claim. Perhaps if it is so important it should be included to prove notablity? 2) Just because its on a list does not mean an automatic keep (as you have been told before.) 3) 713 unique google hits is not very many. 4) What are some of these "schools" its connected too? Arbusto 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what claim you are objecting to. Check the coverage on McKeith. This was major news in the UK. Otherwise, besides the list guidelines, I think we should be documenting all unrecognized accreditors, for the simple reason that people constantly claim bogus degrees from these groups. Merely listing them does not provide enough information for our readers. --JJay 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Check the coverage on McKeith." As for now you haven't supplied anything to prove notability for this group. Does it even still exist as a group or is it just a internet front? WP:CORP states we need several non-trival sources. Arbusto 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — They do seem to be a real organisation, offering accreditation services, though the article desperately needs cleanup to include sources and statements of notability. Should these not be provided, it's a non-notable organisation M a rtinp23 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die The Game

This appears either to be a hoax or, even if true, a NN game not actually produced. A site on the game site (which the only "reference" sited leads to) for "die" under PS platform and TSP as publisher returns no results, nor do many different combinations of Google searches using, for example "die", "playstation", and "bobby bushaa" as an example. Recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either a hoax or a NN game. Prod contested, hoax tag removed, remains unsourced. Likely a single contributor using several socks.--Hús ö nd 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed Ghits, nn notable, not yet produced, unsourced hoax.--Dakota 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Die the article per nom. Google hits for the producer "Blankety Blank Etc" draw a blank: [7] Kavadi carrier 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged it as a hoax on the 7th. It was complete bollocks then and it still is. I'd be happy with an unreliable source, but they don't appear to exist either. --Onorem 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, but also: Shall we quote the article? "Although never actually produced by TSP..." Robovski 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This post must die itself. --Dennisthe2 05:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Born

No source for any information regarding future album. Jopolo 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. A google seach reveals all words ending in "re" followed by word "born". The only reference I found was here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourceless. Dar-Ap e 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Sourceless. Xdenizen 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chx wager

Vanity project, with no use other than to redirect people here during online "debates" in an effort to win. There aren't even any other pages that link to it within Wikipedia, nobody conisders this article of any use other than those who created it Stenun 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The use of the word "vanity" as a reason for deletion is now strongly discouraged per WP:COI#Importance of civility. Please instead use "Conflict of interest". Jpe|ob 00:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Devotchka 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dar-Ap e 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Robovski 04:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom User:Chris_Sheehan 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Infantile, illogical argument based on a series of assumptions and of parochial interest. Known only as an inside joke to the creator's circle of friends and best kept that way. Unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.[reply]
Delete per nom. FembotControls 04:56 9 November 2006 (UTC) CHX wager is a waste of space on here. It sullies wikipedia's reputation and has no merit or value. It's a preposterous article with no basis in truth and is only here to serve as an ego boost to its creator. It should be deleted immediately.-- — Fembotcontrols (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. user's second edit. Kavadi carrier 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nomination. Possibly candidate for speedy? Xdenizen 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up ~~in school~~ on a messageboard one day. -- Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nomination. Ariah 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —freak(talk) 06:03, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Thecompoundword

Disputed prod of non-notable college-produced magazine. Valrith 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search of Thecompoundword -wikipedia reveals a whole 316 hits. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 03:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted, the vast majority of it seems to have been written by one user, and that user's knowledge of the paper suggests that he is involved in the writing of it, and that suggests vanity. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single mention in any American newspaper according to NewsBank. -newkai t-c 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable per User:Ultra-Loser.--Dakota 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to nominate the rest of the family. Punkmorten 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kuster

This article about a professor gives no reasons why he is notable but only his CV. Being a professor alone does not merit an article on Wikipedia File Éireann 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like your above average guy. That's just it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found two publications, one of which is a copy of his Ph.D. dissertation in the library of the college where he works. Someone with access to a university library could probably find some more material. Interestingly, his son Andrew Kuster already has a Wikipedia article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Also, this guy's wife, son and daughter-in-law all have articles:Judith Kuster, Andrew Kuster, Kristin Kuster. Appears to be some family-promotion going on here. I think that all these articles except possibly Kristin's are likely AFD candidates. Bwithh 04:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Also has never been mentioned in a major newspaper, even a local one, ever (NewsBank). -newkai t-c 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and have a look at the family articles. Robertissimo 08:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not remotely notable as an academic. the other family members should go as well, except for Kristin who seems like a keep to me. Derex 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billoo

Article about a comic character that provides no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A subject's site is not a valid source to cite. Non notable, fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on your point about valid sources. A subject's website is a primary source and it most certainly can be used as a valid resource. Even though the article needs third-party sources, the primary source is still a valid reference that may be included. OfficeGirl 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article is badly sourced, but looking at the article about the author, this is a very notable comic (it's a character, but also the title of the series). The series is mentioned on the Comiclopedia[8], one of the most important sites for comics worldwide. He is even shown with a picture in the article about Indian comics on the reliable French site ToutenBD[9]. This two page article about current comics in India by a correspondent of the Hindustan Times mentions it as well[10]. Judging from these different, independent, and reliable sources, this is not only a notable character, but one of the best known series of one of the best known Indian comics authors. I don't have access to any books about Indian comics, but I would urge nominators to at least do a little Google check (or your favourite serach engine) before nominating any article. This article needed some tags (cleanup, source, verify, whatever), not an AfD. Fram 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions and in the AfD notices on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics to get more informed input. -- Fram 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?Of course if does, it's not a website, it's a printed comic. Fram 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Terence Ong, isn't that like saying "we should kill this horse because it doesn't lay eggs like a useful chicken is supposed to do"...? OfficeGirl 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep One of the few printed comics popular on a countrywide basis in India, a country of a billion people. Antorjal
Strong Keep - Seems plenty notable for a fictional character. →Bobby← 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antorjal -Toptomcat 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Fram. Bad faith nom. I fully endorse the views of Fram regarding the printed comic. Any article can be deleted by looking for notability under the wrong headings. Doctor Bruno 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you heed Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith before you start slinging accusations such as this. Valrith 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What accusation ? I am not able to understand. I am just endorsing the views of another editot that I would urge nominators to at least do a little Google check (or your favourite serach engine) before nominating any article. Can you please explain your accusation that I have started slinging accusations.
  - Also I would like the editors not to confuse POPULARITY with NOTABILITY. Popularity may increase or decrease, but once notable is always notable. For example Phonograph though is not popular today, is definitely notable to warrant an article. I am sure WIkipedia cares about Notability and not popularity. Everything that is popular is notable, but not everything that is notable is popular. Lack of popularity today per se is not a criteria for lack of notability Doctor Bruno
    - Your "Bad faith nom" comment is an accusation that I, as the nominator, acted in bad faith. Until there is proof to back such an assertion, you should follow wiki etiquette in assuming good faith. Valrith 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't take it personally; You had tagged a notable entity as non notable. But even after the notability has been asserted without doubt, you don't feel to withdraw your nomination like this example That the subject is notable has been proved as per comments of more than one user other than me. But the fact that you have not withdrawn the AFD makes it hard for me to Assume Good Faith in this AFD (It is nothing against you as a whole). A little effort on any search engine would have shown the notability if you had any doubt. Doctor Bruno 14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the rare comics to be published both in Hindi and English in India. I had read Billoo 10 years back but i think now its popularity is waning and it maybe quasi notable to people now. I don't think the article will get any credible sources --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed that the article needs work, however the subject does appear notable. Xdenizen 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Fram Stephen Day 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the Indian users here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was famous in India when I was a child. Not sure if it's still popular in age of Internet, but this is certainly not an AfD candidate. utcursch | talk 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I have heard a lot about this Indian comic charector.Nileena joseph 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable but does need references. Englishrose 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of confusion

Neologism. The article says this term is "emerging out of the blogging community," suggesting it is still used primarily there. Less than 60 Google hits, most of which are not relevant. No source talking about the term, as required by WP:NEO. No source defining the term, it seems to just have been gathered by context. eaolson 03:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.Hús ö nd 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. Lowerarchy 04:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Alba 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and WP:NEO Xdenizen 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice neologism. But wikipedia isn't the way to spread it. Pete Fenelon 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape mini-games

Entire article reads like game guide, fancruft. Its just a list mini-games in Runescape. I don't see why and game should have its own seperate article for the mini-games in it. Coasttocoast 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape random events (third nomination). Nobody who does not play Runescape cares at all. I can see why you might include minigames that have made some huge impact on gaming, but this includes none of those. -Amarkov ^babble 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too detailed information about too narrow a topic, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As already stated above. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Meh. All that's needed is already in RuneScape, and could be expanded on slightly in RuneScape combat. They're an important part of the game; Pest Control is pretty much the only way to train combat skills faster than the geologically slow random monster-pwning method; but its still not quite important enough to write an article on. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Audacious One 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With Cleanup, this article can be ridden of the small remaining chunks of fancrust. Apart from minor pieces, this article is not gamecruft; but a useful subdivision of the article RuneScape to try and keep the article short. J.J.Sagnella 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all this cruft belongs under RuneScape. Pete Fenelon 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information is already included in RuneScape. T Rex | talk 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sagnella, the minigames are game features, not the excessively bandied around "guide", and are relevant to anyone wanting to know what Runescape is about, as they go some way to relieving the grind. Ace of Risk 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gun (Green Day album)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article is a tracklist and release date only for an upcoming album with no source cited for the tracklist. There's no point in having this article until a) the album is released or b) there is more concrete, verifiable information about the album. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I agree with the points made above, but considering this lbum is supposed to be out in roughly 2 months surely there's something out there that can be said about this to make a real article and so the crystal ball can be used if we can see some evidence. Failing that, supposedly the track list and/or album title came from somewhere so that could be sourced, this could then be merged to the Green Day article until there is enough material for an article. And failing that, delete it. Not much info with no references on the face of it. Robovski 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research comes up with nothing. Changing my vote to strong delete. Robovski 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per edit history, Robovski's initial recommendation was "revise, merge or delete". —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no sources anywhere about the album, the song titles, or the release date of the album. Without the sources this article could be considered a hoax. There are no sources whether they are reliable or not. There is not even a statement by the band about any information on their 8th studio album. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no sources. There is no viable information on any search engines. The author sourced on the Talk:Green Day page that he had a personal meeting with Billie Joe Armstrong and while that may be perfectly true, it violates the WP:NOR policy.--Jude 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources, no mentions on the Green Day site, and most sources I've come across say that Wikipedia has confirmed it. Ben W Bell talk 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewind and play that one again. "Wikipeida has confirmed it?" And there are no primary or secondary sources of reliable, fact-checked material? Hmm, a problem this is. -- saberwyn 10:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes my point exactly. I found a couple of places stating "Wikipedia has confirmed that the next album" yadda yadda yadda. Possibly someone created the Wikipedia article as a means of pushing their ideas through the Green Day community knowing many people would then see it as truthful. Ben W Bell talk 12:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source[11] is an example of what Ben W Bell may have been speaking of, and also this one[12]--Jude 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, no sources cited, unverifiable. Nowhere states that they are going to release the album at all. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too speuclative. Caveat: I was the deleting admin when the prod closed. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's funny that an article due out in a few months by an incredibly well known and popular band doesn't show up anywhere (except for the sites that took the Wiki article as gospel). This is a prime example of how damaging a WikiRumor can be. Any admins might consider closing under WP:SNOW. →Bobby← 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. continued effort finds no official source - in fact the article is the source other people are using. Can we get this closed asap? Robovski 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, WP:NOT Xdenizen 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional inventions and machines on The Simpsons

Recently various pages of similar content, such as the Metal Gear glossary, have been deleted, this is of a similar vain and will likely never obtain any real world info †he Bread 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft, listcruft. Basically List of jokes on The Simpsons episodes involving fictional machines. What next? List of Simpsons jokes involving food, List of Simpsons jokes involving animals etc etc Bwithh 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm iffy on this, just because in most cases, "List of fictional...whatever" articles are lists of things inherent to the nature of the show, for example, List of Futurama products--Futurama is set in the future, and a common joke on the show involves humourous, fururistic twists on modern-day products. The Simpsons is about family life and pop-culture in general--not inventions. This is just an extremely large list of an extremely random aspect of the show. Unless someone could provide a pretty good argument for keeping, I'd say delete (and who knows, there are some people who may be searching for this very thing?). Wavy G 06:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no question that the Simpsons is notable, and will have a fair number of articles devoted to it. This list involves inventions which are often the focus of an episode, and in preference to having an article on each one, as some might possibly deserve it, I'd prefer just this one, as it can be more inclusive. Though I think this list should have links to the episodes the invention appeared in(some do already, some don't). In addition, you should note there is a List of products in The Simpsons (not to mention Vehicles and Homer's jobs) with which this could be merged as a seperate section. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't think lenght is a good argument against this list. It is not extremely large(though I could agree with removing some of the entries, that is not due to length, just inclusion), not necessarily going to get extremely large(I suppose the Simpsons could go on forever, but that's not a good argument for no list), and is short in comparison to some of the existing simpsons articles (like Neologisms of the Simpsons).

Delete, Simpsonscruft, if the events were notable, move it to any appopriate article. Simpsons is rather notable, and I suggest a Simpsons wiki would be suitable for such stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan site. This article has no potential of being kept, its basically nothing but fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Simpsons is one of the most important tv shows of all time and this is a useful directory of some classic material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChimpanator (talk • contribs)

Yes, I agree that the simpsons are important but wikipedia is not a place for all the useless fancruft out there, AFD isn't a place where you want to keep it because you like the article, it's a place to discuss if the article is sutable for keeping by meeting wikipedia policies, which this doesn't per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:CRUFT and also WP:NOR. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wavy Gravy and Bwithh. Move it to the Simpsons wiki. Andrew Levine 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are plenty of aspects of The Simpsons that are notable due to their pervasiveness in popular culture. This just isn't one of them. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of products in The Simpsons as per Manticore. I would say 'redirect' except that I don't see anybody finding it under this rather randomly titled article anyway, so a redirect may be unnecessary. --Christofurio 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are part of merges, to keep the article history in order to comply with the GFDL. Basically, we have to have a record of the edits. FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrew Levine. Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It think its notable and should be tidied up. scope_creep 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the Simpsons, I think most people do, and, more importantly, it is one of the most important shows in the past two decades. That being said, this does NOT mean we need lists for every-possible thing involving The Simpsons. This is listcruft/fancruft. Bwitth makes the same point I'd argue; if we let this stay, then we have to let virtually all lists regarding The Simpsons, no matter how random, stay. --The Way 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ strong strong keep Its an interesting article, I'm sorry to say I recognise many of the inventions and its a fabulous article which has collected together some very intesting aspects of the series into one place. Is it encyclopedic? Having written some stuff on the inrationality of faith in invention, it would be very useful to have an article with so many "irrational" inventions from which to draw examples. If anything I would like to see more details on each, some diagrams or pictures, but what is already there is a very good source material. Perhaps it should be compared to a Heath Robinson invention --Mike 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Heath Robinson I've just discovered that it doesn't cover the subject of "heath robinson" inventions at all and apparently the only source in Wikipedia is this article. I'm therefore strongly urging everyone to change their mind and vote to keep--Mike 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... I really don't think one-time gags on the Simpsons are comparable to the level of imagination found in drawings of Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg. (though yes, the Robinson article needs expansion (though not an article on every single drawing he did) and the Goldberg article is need of substantial cleanup). Bwithh 02:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bwithh, Terence Ong, The Way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Products in The Simpsons.--Veon 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Veon, i belive its still semi-important and needs to be somewhere. Kingpomba 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list doesn't exist †he Bread 03:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Give me a break. Next thing you know, we'll have Number of times 'D'oh!' is exclaimed on The Simpsons.--WaltCip 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand if possible, otherwise delete Go Futurama! Sp3000 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stardog Champion Single 1

Non-notable single that was never released Steve 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) and also[reply]

Stardog Champion Single 2 for the same reason
This Is Shangrila again, never released
Capricorn Sister promo, never released
The Love Bone Earth Affair a home video
Apple (album reissue) a reissued album already covered in Apple (album)

Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as appropriate; Keep The Love Bone Earth Affair. Is deletion appropriate here? The singles should probably be mentioned in the appropriate album pages. Apple (album reissue) can be merged into Apple (album). --Alcuin 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom --Steve 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. shotwell 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete kapow per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One nation enterprise

Non notable record label (prodded and de-prodded). Natalie 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A7) – Gurch 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UniCronicles

External link on the site doesn't work, google didn't bring up anything related and the article fails to assert the notability of the comic. Probably should be a speedy delete, but I'll bring it here to be safe. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by admin Rmhermen as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. TBCΦtalk? 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Holbrook

Complete nonsense. It pretty much speaks for itself. [Iridescence] talk • contrib 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. It's already been tagged and won't survive the night. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, per Ultimus. What is this, Urban Dictionary?! --Dennisthe2 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Er, the article seems to already have been deleted, leaving me unable to read the article to consider a position. Robovski 05:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Saxifrage. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigheads

The article asserts no notability for the webcomic, which would qualify it for CSD#A7. Googling "The Bigheads" comic -wikipedia has 236 results, indicating a lack of notability outside of the article. The comics website claims that the comic hasn't been published outside of Comic Genesis, which is insufficient to meet WP:WEB. Delete. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy current contents, Redirect to Rocko's Modern Life. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TenNinetySeven.com

While the comic in question is relatively old, it isn't notable as one of the first. Beyond a claim to age, the article makes no claims to the comic's notability, nor does the comic's website. Fails WP:WEB. Delete. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ScottM 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article mentions that the author's work appears in two publications. This would meet WP:WEB. Mind you, the article ought to cite a specific issue where the comic appears, but that's a matter of cleanup. Xuanwu 09:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice against creation of a sourced and meaningful article. ~ trialsanderrors 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo data

Linkless, unreferenced, totally disputed as to whether the term has any validity; I've been asking for months on its talk page for someone to justify this and no one has. Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you put forward the idea of rewriting the article to be about what are actually known, in the field of statistics, as pseudo data. You can do that using sources such as this article on statistics, this statistical article on a particular type of pseudo-data, this statistical modelling article that demonstrates a use of pseudo-data, the several sources about the concept of pseudo-data in statistics that are cited in section 1.1 of this article, and several others. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics should be able to help. Uncle G 10:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the relevant parts to Simulation#Engineering (Technology) simulation or Process simulation. Google returns over 38,000 hits on the term, few or none of which (except Wikipedia) refer to the meaning as alleged in this article. As mentioned by Jmabel on the talk page the meaning is overwhelmingly "faked-up date used for testing software" (etc). Tonywalton | Talk 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but rewrite. The term seems quite widely used in various stastics papers and could warrent a good treatment. Current article has little worth keeping. I've mention this on WT:WPM. --Salix alba (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite; the phenomenon of psuedodata (particularly pseudocounts) is real and encyclopedic. Alba 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or perhaps Merge) and rewrite This is a real topic in statistics. The current form of the page has to go though. Merging into another page would be viable as well, as this is somewhat specialized. Baccyak4H 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's an obscure (yet notable) topic. I guess I could see a merge with rediect being a viable option as well. →Bobby← 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to later creation of a meaningful article or disambiguation page with this title. The present article is entirely original research using the title as a neologism for any inaccurate information, which covers none of the common uses. This unencyclopedic treatment must not be kept around as a kind of stopgap until an uncertain promise about another, entirely unrelated article is fulfilled. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the present article: I'd have no problem with someone either replacing this with an appropriate redirect or with writing an appropriate article at this title, but I believe there is nothing at this title worth saving. In either of the suggested scenarios (redirect or complete rewrite) I see no reason to keep any of the present material. - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current content and the history offers no help toward the creation of the legitimate article that the keep opinions seem to desire. As the current content is useless for the creation of a legitimate article, it should be deleted. No prejudice against an encyclopedic article on the legitimate statistical and software testing subject(s). GRBerry 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsupported WP:NEO, and I've never seen an article with quite so many strikes against it! Pete Fenelon 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, no prejudice against recreation We need reliable sources before I'll believe what this article says; based on the comments above, a redirect or possibly even a dab page may be in order. --ais523 14:56, 13 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmonkey

See previous debate. New article is not a substantial improvement over the old one, and should be deleted for the same reasons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple redirect to chainmail would suffice. hateless 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect - No sources provided for teh term, the Chain mail article doesn't use the term, and googling doesn't seem to indicate the term is actually used. -- Whpq 18:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "ringmonkey" is indeed in chain mail. Also, this forum uses the term, which at least establishes it as a possible search term, if not an article. hateless 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. What it establishes is that the term is really only known or heard among the mail-making community. Possibly only a small segment of it, since it's one of maybe two Google hits for the term in this sense that are not from Wikipedia mirrors. To me this suggests that no one who does not already know what it means is likely to encounter it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly created on the wrong Mediawiki site as this isn't a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO Pete Fenelon 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an individual with a hearty interest in armours of all sorts who frequents a number of forums and websites also used by those in the industry of reproduction armour, I can say that I have never once seen this term used. - xiliquiern^talk 06:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [13] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese sex terms

See previous deletion debate for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms 2005

This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.[reply]

Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason". WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply. There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry. Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be. WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is. This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:

If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.

If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.

I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the problems we see alot with lists we also have the fact that WP is not a dictionary, not a slang archive. The article lacks sources and is unverifiable. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, things like "image club" are verifiable if anyone could be bothered to try; encylopedic. Kappa 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May well be verifiable, but shouldn't be here: belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. WMMartin 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or even a regular dictionary. A big list of words and definitions beside them is called a dictionary. Slang is not only hard to cite, but it also means different things in different areas/eras. Also this is an english encyclopedia, so an article that primarily carries foreign langauge is not suited here. Not encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found. Singapore sexual slang terminology looks to me like a good example of what this article could be. I wonder why most of the articles linked to from this list aren't in Category:Sexual slang. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The artilce has had a "source request" tag up for the last three weeks. Apparently no addiitonal sources are available. -Will Beback 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the Delete votes. This is Wikipedia, not Sugoipedia (sou desu ne :P). Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a precise list of terms on a given specific subject is authorized by policy. Terms such as bukkake, gokkun etc. are extremely well known and verifiable through tons of sources. I don't even understand the objection on that score. The nom seems to be questioning the raison d'etre of this list. Well, for better or worse, Japan and sex have been tightly intertwined in the western imagination since at least the 19th century. The interest in Japanese erotica is thus not new and is today a serious subject for critical examination and scholarship [14]. The vast popularity of specific Japanese porn genres in the west is just a later-day manifestation of the previous craze for Japanese erotic prints. Given the cultural divide, it is entirely appropriate for wikipedia to maintain a list of this type for its mainly English speaking readers. --JJay 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every term is either in or not in a dictionary; those that are in dictionaries are obviously verifiable. Verifiability is not an issue. Fg2 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not a dictonary. Arbusto 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) Dicdef. (2) What's verifiable already has its own article. Everything else is unverifiable. (3) This is another of many cases where a "List of..." should be a category. There already is Category:Japanese sex terms even in the article itself, so this list is redundant -- not to mention they're harder to maintain. Anomo 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So this list of foreign language terms with explanations is redundant with an incredibly useful list of foreign language terms without explanations? Kappa 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the reasoning in the previous VfD. Useful list that points to useful articles, inherently encyclopedic and so on. Grue 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anomo. -- Hoary 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" sex terms? (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?) How is "dōjin" a sex term, given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? — Haeleth Talk 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
- For those not following the discussion, how is a list of defined foreign language terms redundant with a list of undefined foreign language terms? Kappa 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it.~~ Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary. -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general. If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
  - Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
  - Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
  - Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
  - Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
  - Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
  - Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
  - Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
  - Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion

Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP not a dictionary. Eusebeus 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I voted to delete this before, but I've changed my mind, because the article is in different shape now. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but these are not simply translations of English phrases into Japanese but rather a completely different beast: sociological phenomena of sexuality in Japan, explained, and with articles about (most of) them. This could maybe use a renaming of some kind, but this list is cut down to the essentials and is encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and you'll see that this kind of list is much like other kinds of lists given there. I can't help but think that many of the people who endorse deletion under the dictionary argument haven't noticed these points, but rather noticed the "list of ... terms" and didn't like the article concept. So like I said, maybe renaming is a good idea, but I'm not sure to what. Still, this goes well beyond mere "terms." Mango juice^talk 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per changes indicated by Mangojuice and others, above. I think it is now definitely encyclopedic and fits the guidelines indicated on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its sourced. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Duja. MER-C 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Software Solutions Point of Sale

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Created by owner, admits it on his user page. Delete immediately under criteria G11 of the Speedy Deletion Guidelines. Ben W Bell talk 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal

Non-notable science journal - many universities produce journals of their own. Less than 500 GHits, mainly from Columbia University websites. Also hovering on the edge of copyvio and {{advertisement}}. Previously speedied by Gurch as csd-g12. riana_dzasta 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely new, only one issue published, Spring 2006. So, it certainly hasn't achieved scholarly notability, which is quite unlikely to develop anyway for an undergraduate science journal. Derex 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the article's overt advertising tone. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable sources to establish importance of this publication.-- danntm ^T _C 14:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though only because it's new and hasn't yet achieved notability. Other undergraduate publications, such as Eureka (magazine), have made notable contributions in their fields, so this is not a worry. It's just that the intention of notability is not the same thing as notability itself. WMMartin 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable. JoshuaZ 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question about how such a journal could attain notability: If articles in it become notable (discussed in refereed scientific journals, discussed in New York Times and CNN? Does that make the journal encyclopedic, or only the writers of the article? If noted scientists publish in it does that confer notability? Issue 1 has an article co-authored by Herbert Terrace, well known at least in experimental psychology. I expect that the distinguished Columbia faculty will frequently be co-authors of papers in it, and that those will get cited by their peers if they say something significant. Edison 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If that occurs, the journal will have some notability. We will still need to have enough data about it from independent sources to satisfy WP:V (which I'm not convinced we have at this point). JoshuaZ 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Edison: My knowledge of scientific literature is, well, developing, but IMHO for a journal to be notable, it should have a higher impact than CUSJ. I searched Google Scholar and found one hit for CUSJ, a request from a student to publish a paper in the journal. As JoshuaZ says, I have no prejudice against recreation, should it become notable. For now, it's not. If the Columbia faculty publish their articles in the journal, and these articles are cited, then the journal obviously attains some notability. Perhaps the guidelines for this should be made clearer? Just a thought... 124.177.238.175 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) riana_dzasta, logged out.[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable. The problem is verification and neutrality when there are too few sources without a conflict of interest (which is often shortened to "noteability"). WAS 4.250 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all per WP:MUSIC. --Core desat 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 93', Demo 94': The "Extra Shit" Demo, Demo 95'

Proposed deletion per WP:MUS of these articles of demo EPs (autor called it an album) by an underground metal band Vision of Disorder. I was going to speedy (CSD A7) it but thought I'd take it to AfD instead. Importance of the band is immaterial here. Demo records are not commercial releases, and are not notable by definition. Notability is not asserted. Ohconfucius 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. More notable musicians have demo records that aren't listed here. While WP:MUSIC doesn't specify what to do in regards to demos, I think there's a reasonable precident to simply mention them on the band's discography page if they have one or not at all if they don't. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason that we should cover demos by every band. Punkmorten 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. scope_creep 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Brad Beattie. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some of the other individual album stubs should probably be merged into the main article as well. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all per WP:MUSIC. --Core desat 03:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demo 2002, Demo 2003, Demo 2004

Proposed deletion per WP:MUS of these articles of demo CDs by underground metal band Bloodsimple. I was going to speedy (CSD A7) it but thought I'd take it to AfD instead. Importance of the band is immaterial here. Demo records are not commercial releases, and are not notable by definition. Notability is not asserted. Ohconfucius 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason that we should cover demos by every band. Punkmorten 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You should have sent it to speedy, Ohconfucius as it clearly fails of all WP:MUSIC scope_creep 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jacques Chirac, merge of pertinent information ~~optional~~ done. I'm also taking the editorial liberty to redirect Claude Chirac to Jacques Chirac. Both redirects are reversible if more encyclopedic content can be added. I'm indifferent about Bernadette Chirac. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Chirac

Questionable notability, being the daughter of the President of France doesn't make one automatically notable. Bringing here to gain a wider opinion. MER-C 08:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)*Delete/Merge No encyclopedic notability in herself. Merge very brief mention of her problems to Jacques Chirac Bwithh 08:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore III, ~~Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Elizabeth Cheney~~. What's the difference? Derex 10:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote: "she does not take part in any political activity." and that there is no other assertion of notability. MER-C 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what's the difference? I struck those above who have made a political appearance. The others have no notability beyond that brought by virtue of their parents; seems the same with Laurence, except she's French. I don't have a strong opinion, but it strike me as a rather American-centric distinction. Derex 13:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge key points with parents' articles. We don't have articles on all US presidential kids, cf. Jack Ford, Chip Carter. --Dhartung | Talk 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jacques Chirac. As for most cases in political figures kids. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Robovski 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per --Terenc e Ong

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star War The Third Gathers: The Backstroke of the West

Internet meme that has been widely discussed on various message boards and forums, but with no reliable sources. There are only 115 Google hits excluding blogs, forums and wikis. [15] There are no reliable sources in these results. The article is also largely original research, and for this reason does not deserve to be merged to list of Internet phenomena. Hence I do not want this article. (Note that this was previously deleted in AfD as Backstroke of the west; this is a repost by a different editor and almost certain to be substantially different.) Kavadi carrier 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, however I have tagged it as a speedy G4 to see whether this is a repost. MER-C 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 doesn't appear to apply; Backstroke of the west, the deleted article, was basically a substub while this article is much longer, so yes, this appears to be substantially different enough to warrant AfD discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I remember finding and cleaning up this article, like a year ago, it seems. It survived this long, and now it's up for deletion, and possibly speedy delete? I remember researching it, and it seemed a fairly huge Internet phenomenon, at the time. Has it fallen out of popularity after this long? Wavy G 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much original tinkering, I'm afraid. However, there's an Wookieepedia article that has essentially the same information anyway, so I guess deleting it here won't be a big loss. At most mention-worthy in the SW3:RotS article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft, not enough reliable sources, verifiability problems. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike most "internet phenomena", this is authentically hilarious. However, lack of reliable sourcing kills it. The Wookieepedia article will have to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be funny, but it doesn't belong, as is, in WP. I suppose it could be salvaged if it were to be written up as an actual film rather than as an internet meme. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete really un-notable. Cruft clogging the Internet's series of tubes. The redirect should be deleted, too. Anomo 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose deletion of this page. The sources of the English text are well documented on the Internet - they can easily be seen and found. The derivations of the "Chinglish" phrases from the Chinese are obvious and clear to anyone who is reasonably familiar with the Chinese language, the Chinese versions of the Star Wars movies and the nature of machine translation. It is a good resource to anyone who wonders why the Chinglish is the way it is on that particular film 59.121.188.158 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean UpI think more links and a references section should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cake and Biscuits (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete for lack of reliable sources either in the article or in this discussion. Absent verification I won't redirect but that's an editorial decision. In case this article should be recreated again, I suggest looking up sources first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangina

I don't know what state this article was in at the time of its first AfD, but it appears to have had a rather traumatic image on it ^{[16], [17]}. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. I recommend that users coming to give their opinions here should look at the article's log, and also that if the article is deleted, it should be protected to prevent recreation. riana_dzasta 08:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was indeed used in Deuce Bigalow, redirect there; otherwise delete as dictdef. Kavadi carrier 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I rather suspect that if it is just redirected, someone will come along and recreate it anyway. riana_dzasta 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it at least gives readers a clue the term has actually been used in the movie. The {{deletedpage}} says nothing informative at all. Kavadi carrier 09:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Something like kitten huffing and Uncyclopedia?~~ No, kitten huffing was never a real article. Still, redirecting sounds alright by me. Not great, but OK. riana_dzasta 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Torn - I suspect Mangina is the kind of thing that could have enough references and citations dug up to make a halfways decent article. That said, I'm not sure I want to be googling "Mangina" whilst I'm at work. WilyD 15:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I think not :p riana_dzasta 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it passes the is this a factual article based on things the average Joe on the street knows already? smell test. In principle almost any dictionary entry can be expanded to create an encyclopaedic article. WilyD 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Deuce. >Radiant< 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appropriate for a ( slang ) dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Let's be aware of the difference, people ! WMMartin 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per nomination. scope_creep
Redirect per Kavadi carrier. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep I can't see what the fuss is about. It clearly needs references but as far as I can see most people seem just to want to censor the article which is against Wikipedia policy. I couldn't find any warnings about tidying up, do the normal thing, tell the user to wikify it and OK if it can't be brought up to a an encyclopedic standard then put it up for AfD --Mike 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to AfD Haseler (talk · contribs). Yes, censoring with extreme prejudice articles whose existence is contraindicated by content policies and guidelines is a good summary of what we do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wha... Angus, rephrase in simple English for the science student, please! :) Contraindication = a factor that increases the risk involved in engaging in a certain activity. I'm not sure what context you're using the word in here... Care to get back to me on that one? if that came across as rude, I apologise... I'm genuinely confused. riana_dzasta 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - wikipedia is not a dictionary, least of all for smut from adolescent comedy movies. Pete Fenelon 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Mangina is a derogative term for toadying men. It is extremely common within the antifeminist movement. --David Hain 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- which makes it sound like it wants to be Transwikied to wiktionary, if it's a current definition. WP:NOT Pete Fenelon 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a redirect is created it should be protected to prevent recreation. Eluchil404 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freej cartoon

Unnotable cartoon, little content in the article. Gekedo 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. yandman 09:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a bad article, but a notable subject. It is an animated cartoon series of fifteen episodes, that aired on Dubai TV: see the website of the cartoon (I know, not an independent source)[18], but also the KuwaitTimes[19], the announcement on Oman3d[20] (no idea if this is a reliable source), Gulfnews[21], and to top it all off ... Variety[22]. As with the Billoo AfD, also today: please do a little Google check (or whatever search engine you prefer) before nominating something for AfD. I'm often called a deletionist, but there are plenty of articles on non notable subjects waiting to be deleted, so there's no need to get rid of bad articles abouot good subjects: just tag them with cleanup, expand, ... Fram 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (Keep, per Fram's absolutely excellent work!) Is Wikipedia the go-to site for bad articles about notable subjects? Is it the place people should go to when they are searching for information on a topic just to be terribly disappointed when they clicked on the page, finding nothing informative and nothing reliable? No, no no, and again I say NO. All we have here is an apparently notable subject, very little information, and no citations whatsoever in the article. That means that the creator of this article really only had enough to make an entry on WP:RA. Maybe someone would like to userfy this article and work on it for a while and then re-post. If no one's willing to make that type of commitment to this article, there's no justification for keeping it around. OfficeGirl 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I understand your position, it is not in line with the reasons for deletion as listed in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This is an example of "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I have shown that a good article can be written about the subject. If you are so disappointed with it in its current state, why don't you try to improve it? I can't help but notice that you don't seem to have made any article edits since October 20 (i.e. 3 days after you started editing), but have since made more than 100 edits in AfD and user space. I'm all for deleting articles that with the currently available sources can not be saved (you can check my track record if you want to), but at the same time we are here to build an encyclopedia, not only to discuss it. Fram 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you are saying, Fram. But we are not even presented with an article that could reasonably be called a stub here-- which in this case would be (1)the name of the article, (2)at least one sentence that explains what it is and why it is important, and (3)at least one reference source that shows the sentence is verifiable. Yandaman's quote about putting on a bathrobe before you walk out the door is very apt. Wikipedia's help information explaining to newcomers what they should do if they want to create a new article warns everyone that they should do their research and get the article in good condition before posting it, because a sub-standard article may well be deleted before you get time to come back and make improvements. Whenever someone improves an article to at least stub quality and there is some indication that someone actually will continue improving an article I have always changed my vote to "keep." (check my track record, too) I have not suggested that we completely obliterate any efforts to have an article about Freej cartoon, and in fact I have suggested options for keeping alive the hope for a good article on this subject without needlessly cluttering Wikipedia with substandard material. OfficeGirl 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that this quote sums it up: [23] yandman 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Freej and cleanup per Yandman. Kavadi carrier 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced and verifiable. Poor writing is an opportunity for improvement, not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 17:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we dealing merely with poor writing here? Or are we dealing with the scribblings of a child-- say junior high school aged-- who decided to fiddle around with Wikipedia features briefly and then disappeared? What's on the article page is something that should have been done in the sandbox, not in a regular article page. Do we really want to reward that behavior? If there were someone ready, willing and able to do work on the article then I'd agree with "keep." But it appears that there is no one, not even among the "keep" voters who has lifted a finger to make it into at least a stub. OfficeGirl 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a genuine cartoon magazine. The article needs cleaned up, wiki'd, categorised, and sources added. scope_creep 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs re-writing but it's a real cartoon series shown on a real world broadcast network. Robovski 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have rewritten it now, I hope the current stub is acceptable (though far from perfect of course). Fram 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I think that we can close this debate. Anyone object to the new version? yandman 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva editor. No objections there =)Gekedo 11:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a strong consensus for a speedy keep thanks to Fram. How about it? OfficeGirl 15:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Objection here either - good work, thanks for taking the time. Robovski 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Merope 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rhoemer

I think that the last sentence, "Ground Zero is a series created by me, Kamran S. Nikhad" sums it up. Character in a Non-notable, maybe even unwritten, novel. Author unknown on google yandman 09:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to get it published, but I editted that last part out if that helps.

I'm sorry, but we can only talk about books that a)exist, b)are known. Hopefully you'll get it published, make a film (Vin Diesel comes to mind) and come back here and make us eat our hats. In the mean time, I apologise for having to speedy delete this under notability criteria. yandman 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I understand, thank you very much for informing me. And thank you, I hope I can get it published too.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenwood Solutions

This article makes no attempt whatsoever of referencing any "sources" or presenting verifiable data.

In fact, this article seems about a fictitious company featured in the November 9th episode of the television show "Jericho", which I have myself viewed. The information in the article appears to be based off of events in the television show.

If no information can be found that this company actually exists, this article should be promptly removed. NorCal Ryan 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-wikipedia google hits for "ravenwood solutions", or for its "parent company" Jennings and Rall. This is either a hoax or promotional. It seems likely to be a promotional article written for hire, since the show was aired today, but the article was written two weeks back. Linked logo license lists article author as the creator, which seems quite unlikely for a real company. AFD should include the logo and Jennings and Rall as well, by same author. Two differnet anon ip edits on Jennings, both from Irvine CA. Derex 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I've added Jennings and Rall to the AFD. -- Netsnipe ► 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per recent discussion. Use WP:DRV. Naconkantari 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third holiest site in Islam

I am nominating this article for deletion second time. First time according to my count 27 votes were for deletion and 19 for keeping. The deletion votes were coming more regularly in the end but it was closed. If the admin had extended it closing deadline then we might had reach on a consensus. The reasons of deleting it are many. (1) The sources used for making other sites as third holiest sites are not reliable. Mostly the criterion of number of people visiting a site is used to make it holiest for Muslims then our third holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque. (2) A very vast majority of Muslim agree that third holiest site is Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque article could have a section for small minority not agree with it. Creating a new separate article looks like a effort to make our claim of majority disputed and a conspiracy against Muslims. (3) The references that Al-Aqsa Mosque is indeed third holiest site (nothing else) are very strong. We have many hadiths from Sahih Bukahri and others. Furthermore, also it was place towards where Muslim used to offer their Prayer instead of Kaba in Mecca. It is our Kabla-Awal (first Kaba). How could something be holiest than our Kabla-awal? Please do not use CNN/Fox as a source to tell Muslim that Al-Aqsa Mosque is no more third holiest to us. ابراهيم 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Adding "strong" to your vote is utterly meaningless and does not add anything to the debate. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-09 11:14:46
- As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion used to explain, it means that one's position is strongly held and only likely to be changed by a strong counterargument or good evidence to the contrary. Uncle G 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So...pretty much like every other vote then, in terms of actual value. Therefore pretty pointless. Dev920 (Please vote here) 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin(s): although it is generally recognized that AfDs are not about delete or keep counts please do take care to read the arguments on this page thoroughly as well do take into consideration the religious affiliations of those involved in the debate. In particular take note of the fact that the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque is disputed between Muslims and Jews. Given the fact that there is no equivalent First holiest site in Islam or Second holiest site in Islam the creation (and the content) of this article and it being a sort of directory/list of "holiest somethings" should make evident the soapbox nature of the content found therein. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously my vote is delete. --- ابراهيم 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote. Pretending to vote as nominator is extremely bad form. WilyD 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he did this in bad faith, I think he was simply making a redundent statement after his explaination. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he did it in bad faith either - but he or she keeps insisting that AfD is a vote (for example, in the nom) and this kind of misconception needs to be warded off. WilyD 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep per nom. - Akaneon 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- How could you have keep per nominator ? Is that a mistake or a joke ? --- ابراهيم 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin Please discard such votes that are there for fun only . --- ابراهيم 11:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blocked as a troll. Yanksox 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun or not, it's a keep. Amoruso 12:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso Please do not write more than one bold keeps (even in your FUN comments). You have already voted once. --- ابراهيم 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply I voted again. I can write in bold what I wish. Amoruso 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dev920 (Please vote here) 09:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - but Third holiest site in Islam is kind of a subjective, non encylclopaedic title for an article, isnt it? Amists 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really subjective but some people are trying to make it subjective in this article. For example: a hadith from Sahih Bukhari: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in the Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my mosque (in Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsa is worth 500 prayers more than in an any other mosque. Also another hadith says: ... Not to travel (for visiting) except for three mosques: Masjid-al-Haram (in Mecca), my Mosque (in Medina), and Masjid-al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).[Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 29, Number 87]. This article try to conspire against our Kabla-awal. Muslims have ever offer prayer towards only two places Kaba in Mecca and Al-Aqsa Mosque. But they are telling us other sites are more holiest to us. --- ابراهيم 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. Should be closed since last nomination was very recent. Seems to be a misplaced nomination not understanding what consencus is. It really wastes everyone's time to list an article for deletion every two days. Close please. Amoruso 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTplease note this user (Amoruso) started this article ([24]) & his motivation seems obvious: (1) the noble sanctuary which includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque is only given a perfunctory mention in his original article, & it is unquestionably the 'third holiest site in islam' per all the reasons given here. (2) there is an ongoing dispute over the status of the noble sanctuary because it is also the temple mount, the holiest site of judaism (3) it is quite obvious where amoruso stands in that particular debate. QED this article is intended to mislead uninformed readers interested in the conflict over the noble sanctuary/temple mount. as tendentious, trouble-making, falsehood it shld be deleted & redirected to Al-Aqsa Mosque perhaps with relevant changes in that article. there is no need for a vote, this is a simple matter of NPOV. → bsnowball 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Amoruso. Beit Or 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AfD was closed (by me) a couple of days ago as "no consensus". This should really be an issue for WP:DRV, and in hindsight maybe I should have relisted the AfD to attain a better consensus. Anyway, this is an article that seems to deal with an issue that is somewhat potentially inflammatory (weasel wording intended). I do not know the fundamental details of this issue, but I can see that there are differing views on the matter. From what I can see, there is some substance to the claims made in the article. Perhaps an acceptable compromise can be reached if an article named Holy sites in Islam or Muslim Holy Sites, in which the holy sites were not ranked, was created.--Ezeu 11:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean just a list? I do not think we need just a list and a category could do that more effectively. I also think that such article already exist as pointed by User:Zora. Please do not close this AFD article this time and leave it to some other admin. It is just a request if you could fulfill. --- ابراهيم 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that I will not close this AfD. Not only is it unfair to close an AfD in which one has given an opinion, but it is also against Wikipedia policy. Could you please point out and give a link to the article that lists Muslim Holy Sites. If such an article exists, I see no reason why this article cannot be merged/redirected to that one.--Ezeu 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Zora comment in last AFD. The link she gave is broken and points to the wrong article. Please ask her to give the right link after reading her comments. --- ابراهيم 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nom. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin take notice that User:Amoruso is removing all the tags related to "citation" and "source verifiablity" in the middle of AFD . So that if someone look at the article he finds no problem with Yacky sources used in the article. Please stop him from doing so until this AFD is closed. --- ابراهيم 11:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These tags were added yesterday in excessive form with some violent language [25] all over the article, where it's all already covered in the genral totallydisputed tag on the top. Tags aren't placed on every sentence without reason just because one doesn't like the article. It will be as if one will nominate an article for deletion every two days under false excuses just because he doesn't like it... things we don't do. Cheers. Amoruso 11:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The total disputed article does not talk about individual sources used in the article. I have not added those link and not even ask someone to add them. Do not try to represent the article yacky sources in a good way by mass edit of yours.--- ابراهيم 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please review Wikipedia conventions on good faith uses of tags. totallydisputed tags covers everything. If you feel every sentence is not properly sourced use talk page or place one tag at proper section, not 200 tags. Thank you. Amoruso 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The person concerned (Amoruso) has been warned. Note that this issue does not belong here, take it up at your talk pages. --Ezeu 11:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - [26]Amoruso 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information). This article is essentially a POV fork. BhaiSaab ^talk 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last time Avi 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please explain to me why certain people are insistant on tagging all the claims as][verification needed][please verify the credibility of this source]?
- WP:V states: “Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources”
- Wikipedia:No original research states: There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses.
- W:NPOV states: Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce....most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources.
- Kairouan & Professor Bowen’s research on Hala Sultan Tekke, - both sections have are sourced from journals published by university presses and the authors are academics. Umayyad Mosque, Fez, Morocco, Aljama Mosque, Spain, Takht-i-Suleiman, are sourced from online magazines, journalists and other travel destination researchers. Many of the Shia Muslim sites are from mainstream online newspapers; Al Kadhimiya Mosque is a Primary Source - an interview, etc.
The tags seem to be a ploy to discredit all the claims in order to stop these claims from being acknowledged. Chesdovi 12:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. Amoruso 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel destination researchers? thestick 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Recent AfD which failed to reach consensus. Will probably fail to do so again. Pursey 12:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per prvious AfD. The fact that a topic is controversial is no reason for deletion. Stammer 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:ALM scientist lists the reasons for deletoing as follows:
1. The sources used for making other sites as third holiest sites are not reliable. Mostly the criterion of number of people visiting a site is used to make it holiest for Muslims then our third holy site Al-Aqsa Mosque.
  - How can you clarify this? I read that The Imam Ali mosque received more pilgrims? Besides, all along it has been argued that this has nothing to do with it, but rather it is the 3rd holiest b/c of Koran, hadith etc!
2. A very vast majority of Muslim agree that third holiest site is Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque article could have a section for small minority not agree with it. Creating a new separate article looks like a effort to make our claim of majority disputed and a conspiracy against Muslims.
  - This was originally included in a section in Al Aqsa mosques, but was removed after complaints and a new article was created to conform with W:NPOV
3. The references that Al-Aqsa Mosque is indeed third holiest site (nothing else) are very strong. We have many hadiths from Sahih Bukahri and others. Furthermore, also it was place towards where Muslim used to offer their Prayer instead of Kaba in Mecca. It is our Kabla-Awal (first Kaba). How could something be holiest than our Kabla-awal? Please do not use CNN/Fox as a source to tell Muslim that Al-Aqsa Mosque is no more third holiest to us.
There have been thorough arguments against this notion discussed in the previous deletion attempt. CNN/Fox are reliable sources whether you like it or not! Chesdovi 12:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN/Fox/Time/PBS/CBS (and any other news source which this article may souurce) have said the Al-Aqsa mosque is Islams third holiest site several times, and it looks like they readily acknowledge the same. Take a look at the 40+ links someone compiled on the previous AfD discussion. thestick 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be then that Al Aqsa isn’t the sole, exclusive third holiest? Chesdovi 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ALM scientist states First time according to my count 27 votes were for deletion and 19 for keeping. The deletion votes were coming more regularly in the end but it was closed. I wonder why so many were suddenly coming in towards the end, did Count Iblis have anything to do with this? [27] Chesdovi 13:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The third holiest site is recognised as Al Aqsa.All others shown in this article are important in themselves but it would not be very objective to award this title to all of them..If information is compiled in this way ..one will have to end up defining the meaning of "holiest".TerryJ-Ho 14:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is the English Wikipedia and not the Muslim Wikipedia and what consistitues a good source here and what consititutes a good source per Islam are not equivalent, even on Islamic topics. While some may want to create an encyclopedia within an encyclopedia here and only allow editing on Muslim topics by Muslim editors using Muslim sources, this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I apologize to religious Muslims for this keep vote, but I feel it is very important. Elizmr 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, and without voting, becasue I am not sufficiently expert to know the relative standings of Muslim authorities, may I say that I cannot see how any non-Mulsim could properly edit on a Muslim topic: this is like opening all Christian articles to editing by Satanists, and saying that "freedom of opinion" prevents any reversion. -- Simon Cursitor

Delete : Like I've said before, this article is an indiscriminate collection of links with no regard to factual accuracy or reliability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of Information. Several of the sources are not reliable sources and are not in accordance with WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources (Several self published sources and no 3rd party analysis to back the sources) and Undue Weight is given to self published sources. While one can try to assume good faith, the creator(s)/major contributors themselves have expressed the political/religious inclinations they wish to satisfy by creating this article. It's unreasonable to assume good faith on part of users who openly declare that they are acting in bad faith. Therefore I feel this article was written in Bad faith, and on top of that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, most of the article is just a collection of obscure external links which just say "site is third holiest" without any theological reason. So, that's a lot of policies violated. There were attempts to improve the article, but the long edit wars prove that this cannot be done. Finally, any credible information in this article has already been added to the respective articles of any site, so this article can be safely deleted without any loss of information. I also humbly request certain users that are in favour of keeping this article to refrain from resorting to insulting/flaming the users that want it deleted - and discuss the article itself. Also, I request some users that want it deleted to keep their cool. Any fears of "Only Muslims controlling what is said about Islam on wikipedia" are completely unfounded and keeping such an article is not the proper way to address such fears. If people readily accept whatever is written on the internet and everything was factually correct, wikipedia would not be required, Google would suffice. thestick 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points. --- ابراهيم 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY DELETE: Per my input at the previous AFD request. The article misinterprets the various weak citations given and jump to conclude that for example Eyup Mosque is the "Third Holiest site in Islam". I wonder which Islam is this? Turkish Islam? or Turkish Cypriot Islam or what? How many Islams are there?

Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem's status is recognised in the authentic Islamic sources of the Quran and Hadith that has been agreed upon by all Muslims since 14 centuries. The article here is dubious, not scholarly, and I advise the champions of this article not to use the informations here on the show Who wants to be a Millionaire !!

Much of the sites listed here may be enlisted, and some have been already been enlisted, at this article [28] and should not be listed under a controversial title like "Third Holiest site in Islam" if rigor and scholarship is to be maintained. Certainly the title "Third Holiest site in Islam" implies that this is a status given in the religion of Islam and relates to all Muslims regardless of being in Turkey or Pakistan or Tunisia. This title is to the common 3 cities notable to all muslims regardless of where they happen to be. Again to the Turkish example, it does not seem that Muslims give this recognition and embark on a journey to visit the mosques in Turkey and the Turkish Northern Cyprus Republic. Similar thing can be said to al-Juwanah mosque and so forth.

I would like the champions of this article to give more credible citations "per the title of this article" possibly from peer reviewed Journals or Books. Finally, officially the Organisation of Islamic Countries OIC already recognises the holiness of these three cities Mecca Medina and Jerusalem TO ALL MUSLIMS [29]. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - the article and topic are sourced and encyclopaedic. Reopening a previous discussion that was obviously never going to come to a conclusion (although it's clear anyone acting in good faith will conclude this article is a keep). AfD is not a vote, and exactly zero rational has been advanced for deletion that can be claimed to hold any water at all. Basically the only reason is "I disagree with the sourced, encyclopaedic information in this article. Therefor it should be deleted". That is what comes out of the north end of a south facing bull. WilyD 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can mentioning an error that was once in a faculty handbook be considered sourced and encyclopedic?. The reason for deletion is not because someone disagrees with the article. Go through the links once again and you'll see most of the sources for the bottom sites are from travel websites. The same news sites on which some sites were mentioned as third holiest write the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest in other articles (which is why some believe they shouldn't be used as sources for theological subjects and especially given more importance than the scriptures of the religion). Also, declaring the concerns of other wikipedians as bullshit wont help anything. thestick 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in fact, a stack of references. The quality of any individual reference is an issue for the editors to work on. AfD is not a place for you to bring editing disputes. As for my negative view of POV warriors - it's important to identify them for what they are to ensure AfD gives the right result (apparently no concensus). WilyD 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to my count 24 references have problems. See yourself here . If one or two had problem then things might be different. --- ابراهيم

"How can mentioning an error that was once in a faculty handbook be considered sourced and encyclopedic”. When it was first added there was no reason to believe it was an error. You still haven’t provided any proof that it was indeed an error. Besides there is no reason why mentioning things which are out of print or from an old edition should be a problem. Maybe it’s just that the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals is not a reputable university? Chesdovi 15:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A faculty handbook has no relation to the reputation of the university. It is NOT a research document or study. The introduction of the particular edition in question itself mentioned that there could be errors and requested that any errors be pointed out. The fact that it was replaced and that there are NO other sources to back the claim are enough proof. thestick 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir to Al-Aqsa Mosque --Nielswik_(talk) 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. Renom smacks of sour grapes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is gonna come down to the same biases as before. I still maintain the encyclopædic value of this article as there are different "third holiest site"s and different "the far mosque"s that at least 10% of Islam believes in. We shouldn't discount 100,000,000 people just because some of us may happen to disagree with them. Valley2city 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I'm willing to listen to opposing arguments, but I don't want to rehash this every week. Deleters: try working on the article, see what happens. IronDuke 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People have tried several times to work on the article, only get their edits reverted/deleted, and this has been going on for a long time. Also, 10% is the total percentage of Shiite Muslims, not the % of Muslims that don't believe the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. Also, please help in reaching some consensus instead of voting keep just because the article was renominated for deletion. Also, to see the 'other' bias behind this article, just check out the previous AfD [30] and if you're using firefox search for "I will settle" , "fanatics", read the entire comments, and also look at the talk page the AfD. thestick 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick, I have no doubt it's frustrating. But the last vote clearly lacked consensus. Instead of forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops (where you'll likely have the same result) try changing consensus through persuasion. Easier said than done, I know. But this exercise seems pointless to me. IronDuke 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm generally skeptical to rankings such as these to begin with - it should suffice that Jerusalem/Al Quds is a holy city in Islam; but it's certainly worth explaining that there is at least some contention whether other cities are more important. Perhaps the article should be renamed, but to delete or redirect to Al Aksa mosque amounts to burying the issue. Also, I don't think a speedy second nomination is in good form. --Leifern 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To say the something is the Xth most Yiest place on Z requires alot of citation that is not contradicted. Whats more this article is about a place that already has an article. This article is redundent and misinformative. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not happy with the article's present state, but deletion is unwarranted. --tickle me 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Bad faith nomination based it seems on the nominator simply not liking the clear outcome of the previous AfD listing. 27 votes one way and 19 another is practically a working definition of 'no consensus'. Wikipedia is not a democracy so a majority is immaterial given the number of dissenters. Obviously this article needs work, but this has been through AfD already and shouldn't have returned to it. -Markeer 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we assume good faith here, then we come to the conclusion that this was put up because consensus was lacking in the last one. There is no reason to beleive this nom is bad faith. Like you said it is not a democracy, and the number 27vs19 do not mean much without context. I honestly beleive the consensus was lacking in the last AfD. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It is an interesting article. I never knew that so many places have been considered the third holiest in the islam. Gidonb 19:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge salvageable parts in the relevant article on the Mosque. The reason is that this article is merely a list of mostly non-notable utterances by non-scholarly media sources, and as such, does not warrant an entry into an encyclopedia except (and forgive me for saying this) for malicious intentions. It would be one thing if this article documents actual scholarly references to various sites that are regarded as the 'third holiest', but this article actually is a compilation of quotes by various individuals or media organisations - that mostly have no scholarly knowledge of the subject and would probably stand corrected if confronted - that passingly referred to some site or another as the "third holiest" for Muslims. "Passive reference" from sources such as a reporter or a member of a non-relevant organisation is not grounds to creating an encyclopedic article. If this article was quoting people who actually know what they are talking about, e.g. Karen Armstrong, it would be a different story. But as it stands now, it makes a mockery out of the Wikipedia project. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does K. Armstrong know what she's talking about? She's a self taught writer on religion. --tickle me 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least she is a writer on religion, which these sources are not. And that's the point: The vast majority of the sources used in this article are NOT sources that are discussing the "level of holiness" of the Aqsa Mosque. These are just random utterances in passing by people who were not saying what they said to make an argument about what is or is not the third holiest site in Islam. If this article stays, it would need to be encyclopedic - meaning that it would have to include sources that are making an argument about the holiness of the Mosque and not just news clippings of quotations being uttered in passing by people who are actually emphasizing a different matter entirely. That is why this article is just disingenuous and horribly misleading and un-encyclopedic. I personally (or impersonally) don't really care about categorizing physical structures in terms of holiness to a particular religion - but what I do care about is good editing and sound articles. This article, in its present form, makes a mockery out of WP:RS and WP:V to name just two. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no consensus was the decision just a few days ago. --- RockMFR 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at whatever rate of speed is appropriate. The article seems to have enough reliable-seeming sources for other contenders as third holiest site in Islam. 6SJ7 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thestick & Ramallite. Though it troubles me this was just closed as an AfD 2 days ago, thestick's argument is very persuasive. Furthermore, well this article is sourced, it is a mismash of sources that first tries to establish Al-Aqsa Mosque as the 3rd holiest site for Shiites, then goes on to list every other site that anyone may consider the 3rd holiest site. Many of these soures might be reliable for other things, but I don't know how you could consider Time magazine, the Boston Globe, or several other of the sources to be in any way a reliable authority on what the "3rd holiest site in Islam" may be. Beyond that this is essentially a indiscriminate collection of information with no compelling argument, reasoning, or sourcing to indicate that the "3rd holiest site in Islam" is in any way an important or notable concept in Islam. Why is there an article on Third holiest site in Islam and not Second holiest site in Islam or Fourth holiest site in Islam? Like I said before, I'm not crazy about a renom 2 days later, but in my opinion the first AfD got it wrong.--Isotope23 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last nom came to no decision, so it could not be wrong. No consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "why the third, not second or fourth?" should be pretty obvious to anyone with a passing acquaintance with Islam - one and two are (essentially) undisputed, leaving third as "the most important contraversy". WilyD 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have more than a passing acquaintance with Islam and I still think this article is completely unecessary. It's not a controversy; it's a collection of non-reliable sources on this topic... and I think the no consensus was wrong.--Isotope23 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a collection of non-relevant sources that are not on this topic - and that's the problem as I see it. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "Repeated nomination for deletion: In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the subject as soon as I saw Jerusalem I immediately suspected this was a grudge delete. The article looked well researched it looks encyclopedic, if I had time I would read it with interest (I might later)--Mike 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect Alright, this seems a bit ridiculous for me. The 'third holiest site in Islam,' despite being somewhat arbitrary and an unwieldy title, is logically the same as whatever the proper name of the 'third holiest site' is. To use a bit of logic, using the law of identity, the 'Third Holiest Site..." is "Al-Aqsa Mosque," i.e. they are equal to one another. Thus, having separate articles for both amounts to having two separate articles for the exact same thing. Merge whatever material is here that isn't on the Mosque's page, delete this article and have it redirect to the third holiest site in Islam. A redirect should be sufficient; in the unlikely case where someone would actually look for the 'third holiest...," if an article pops up for a specific place I'm sure they'll figure out that that place is the 'third holiest...' --The Way 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is not and has not ever been an official or agreed upon "third holiest" in Islam. Muslims have long written about it. --Shamir1 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original vote. Evolver of Borg 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 2 cents worth: I would like to ask why there is no article called "First Holy City in Islam" or "Second holy City in Islam"? I think there is enough junky material on the Web that can support such a WikiPedia article if the same standards for creating the third holiest article are followed. For example, only one hour of so-called research I spent on the Web was enough for me to collect to citations that disupte that Madina is the second Holiest city in Islam. Here are these citations

First one: At an earlier time, it was the practice to face Jerusalem, the second holiest city in Islam.[31]

Second one: the cousin of the Prophet Mohammed, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia. [32]

Third one: Three holiest places in Islam: the Arabian Peninsula first, Iraq second, and Jerusalem, which is held by the Israelis, third. [33]

Fourth one: I’ll tell you how to embolden an enemy – invade the second-holiest land of Islam [34]

Fifth one: There was no reference in the letter of an Australian ‘self-identified’ Christian who set fire to the Muslims’ second holiest shrine in East Jerusalem two decades earlier. [35]

Sixth: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam [36]

Seventh: paving the way to creating the opportunity for laying hands on and destroying the Dome of the Rock, the second holiest place after Mecca for Moslems [37]

Eight: The invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the second holiest land in Islam [38]

Nine: His writing about the assault in Islam's second-holiest shrine is lyrical [39]

Ten: Iraq is smack in the middle of the Islamic world and the second holiest place in Islam [40]

Eleven: as all point to the unholy occupation of Islam’s second holiest site, The Dome of the Rock [41]

Twelve: could ever manage to tear down the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest site [42]

Thirteen: In the background is the Dome of Rock, second holiest site in Islam.(Episcopal News Service photo by James Solheim) [43]

Fourteen: Netanyahu's next step was approving the opening of a tunnel under Islam's second holiest site, Al-Aqsa Mosque [44]

Fifteen: The French attitude to the conquest of the second holiest state in Islam is in part because their country is a functional democracy [45]

Sixteen: all of his history and why Jerusalem is the second holiest site for Muslims [46] Seventeen: Iraq, which, after all, is the second holiest place in Islam [47]

Eighteen: Following the burning in 1969 of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest shrine of Islam [48][49]

Nineteen: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam; a place where Islam had been long suppressed by Saddam [50]

Twenty: rebuild the Temple. The fact that the second holiest Mosque in Islam presently sits on the site is [51]

Twenty one: The war “validated” what radical Muslims had said about “American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world [52]

Twenty two: Since al-Awza'i is Lebanon's second holiest and most ancient Moslem exceeded in age and importance by the Qubba of the Sitt Kholat, granddaughter of the Prophet [53]

Twenty three: At the centre of that conflict is Jerusalem, the unofficial capital of the Christian faith and at the same time, Islam’s second holiest [54]

Twenty four: Forget that there are U.S. troops in the second holiest country in Islam [55]

Twenty five: One of the mosques is the Dome of the Rock, the earliest Islamic monument which dates from 684 AD which marks the second holiest site in Islam [56]

Twenty six: 45 and married women over 35 were allowed to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam’s. second holiest site [57]

Twenty Seven: Iraq is second in his list of priorities because it is the second holiest country in Islam [58]

Twenty eight: the Al-Aqsa Masjid in Eastern Jerusalem: the second holiest Masjid in Islam [59]

Twenty nine: to occupy Iraq which is the second holiest place in Islam [60]

Thirty: Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam [61]

Thirty one: to rebuild Solomon's Temple (starting with knocking down the second holiest shrine in Islam!) [62]

Thirty two: Barak, at the last minute, threw in a klinker, and demanded that the Muslim world agree, through Arafat, to turn over the second-holiest place in Islam, a mosque on a mountain there, in Jerusalem, called Al-Haram al-Sharif, and make it a Jewish temple to be taken over, actually, by certain American Protestant circles, who want to create the Battle of Armageddon, and similar kinds of festivities [63]

Thirty three: American tanks were near the second holiest shrine in Islam [64]

Thirty four: eventually the Al-Aqsa mosque, the second holiest site in all Islam [65]

Thirty five: The Al Aqsa mosque ......it would be difficult for non-Muslims to enter the area which is filled with devout Muslims praying in the second Holiest site for Islam after Mecca. [66]

Thirty six: Zionists are lusting to see the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest shrine) blown up [67]

Thirty seven: Bukhara was considered the second holiest city next to Mecca [68]

Thirty eight: the place at which he is said to have ascended into heaven- and the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca, of Islam [69]

Forty: The United States is currently in Iraq, (which is considered the second holiest place in Islam) [70]

Forty one: The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. [71]

Forty two: Further, the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon's original temple [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/religion/article_21228898.shtml]

Forty three: That obstacle is the second holiest place of the Muslim faith, the Dome of the Rock. [72]

Forty four: second holiest place of the Moslem faith, the Dome of the Rock [73]

Forty five: File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Islam’s second holiest site, the Dome of the Rock which is now in Israel has. been one reason for the continued support of Palestine in Islamic populations [74]

Forty six: American-led invasion of Islam’s second-holiest [75]

Forty seven: Bam was Islam’s second holiest [76]

Forty eight: (the temple-mount, called Moriah) has also been Islam's second holiest sight (after Mecca) [77]

Forty nine: The Israeli army clashed with Palestinians after restricting their access to East Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound for the first Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site, the police were quoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP). [78]

Fifty: Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site,” an Israeli police source [79]

Fifty one: Israel's intended rape of the second holiest place of Islam, Jerusalem's al- Haram-al-Sharif [80]

Fifty two: The Qods (Jerusalem) Day demonstrations, staged by the Iranian administration every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, are aimed at liberating Jerusalem, the second-holiest place for Moslems after Mecca, from Israeli occupation. [81]

Fifty three: The Dome of the Rock, a fairly unimportant shrine for centuries, was elevated to the position of second holiest shrine in Islam [82]

Fifty four: the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon’s original temple [83]

Fifty five: Its makers believe the creation of this Red Heifer would be a holy signal to destroy the second-holiest Islamic shrine, known to Westerners as "Dome of the Rock" [84]

Fifty six: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Libya were Orthodox Christian nations at the time of Arab Muslim conquests after 640 AD. The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. [85]

Fifty seven: Jewish terrorists attack second holiest site in Islam [86]

Fifty eight: the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca [87]

Fifty nine: The second Holiest place in Islam is located right on the spot of where the Holy of Holies of the old Jewish Temple was located. The Dome of the Rock is supposed to be the place where their prophet ascended unto heaven. [88]

Sixty: the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in. the mosque of ‘Omar, the second holiest site in all. Islam, [89]

Want more, maybe about the first holiest site this time ! I have more if you want but I do not seriously want to waste your time seriously on this. I ask you guys to DELETE this nonsense article called "Third Holiest Site in Islam". Otherwise, it will be unfair to my CLASSY RESEARCH to be wasted by not creating a new article talking about the "Second Holiest site or sites of Islam!!" to argue al-Madina's status in Islam. Please do not waste this most REMARKABLE RESEARCH hour I have ever done in my life !!!! Wow, this stuff is getting really cooler than the way it started!!! Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the new arguments for "keep," where they seem sincere, elevate procedure over policy. Where the arguments for "keep" sincerely concern content questions, I repeat again that any actual "controversy" here could and should be discussed on pages devoted to articles on respective sites, using authoritative sources. I myself harbor no illusions regarding the nature of this piece, and I assume its more vigorous defenders don't either, so I will be frank: WP is not a soapbox, nor a battleground. The authors of this piece seem to me to want to use WP to bait Muslims with a made-up "controversy" regarding their sacred sites, and they have done so. I am sure that anyone here who has previously encountered long-term, complex editing abuse in other subject areas recognizes the systematic and sustained pattern of exploitation of policy for mischievous purposes that we see here. We have also seen before how WP procedures for addressing the problems caused by partisan posters are defeated when more than a few gather to prevent corrective action based on "a consensus." While it is clear, given the nature of this dispute, that a "consensus" cannot be achieved realistically, it is also clear that, given the references this article lines up, "the controversy" this article seeks to establish does not exist in any substantial form anyway. Those of you in the US may be aware of a particular Fox News commentator who uses the network to flog sales of a sensationalist book he wrote on a "liberal conspiracy against Christmas." This is exactly that kind of shallow, partisan scholarship, entirely intended to cause a ridiculous dispute, that I am seeing the WP mainspace, procedures and policy being exploited to perpetuate here. As some of the comments in this AfD and the last one show, there are people in the real world and on WP who are gullible enough to believe "any" reference, or "any" article, even on WP, substantiates "anything." --Amerique ^dialectics 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that your statement, while it may seem sincere, is a total violation of WP:AGF and a textbook demonstration of why we have that rule. ...the systematic and sustained pattern of exploitation of policy for mischievous purposes that we see here. That is an extremely unhealthy view of your fellow editors, and I hope that you could sincerely read the policy and understand why this is inappropriate. Tewfik^Talk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I call it as I see it. The editors in question seem fine Wikipedians with great records in other capacities, I would say especially on topics that have to to do with Israel or Judasim, but sustained efforts to paint this one particular Islamic site a certain way don't at all seem "well-intentioned" to me. To me, the bending of WP policies and prodecures to allow for this here and in other articles qualifies as a complex pattern of editing abuse, and I would advise all editors truly concerned with WP policy over their own politics not to support the keeping of this article.--Amerique ^dialectics 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but surely Tew the whole point of this is that (at least regarding the article's creator, in this instance) good faith is demostrably lacking, per my above on User:Amoruso and others noting the 'pov fork'. but contra Amer this instance seems to be a blatant attempt on the part of Amoruso to confuse a very important issue "to do with Israel or Judasim". again, everyone pls check [90] → bsnowball 11:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It's the Muslim editors who wanted this to move out of the Al Aqsa Mosque article [91]. None of us will have any problem is this content stayed there - but obviously then that information will be deleted from there as well. It's a question of censoring, we don't care where the information will be as long as it appears on the original article as well, but the motive behind some might be different as apparent and the information will be deleted regardless where it is for specfic agenda I think. Amoruso 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if that is your only problem then take Al Aqsa Mosque & your proposed additions to arbitration & get that sorted out. should only need a minor mention, as the 'controversy' is greatly exagerated by yourself (but again, this can be sorted in arbitration). the, ah, flimsyness of your excuse for this pov article can only reinforce the impression that it is an attempt to confuse readers (as per my aboves & others) → bsnowball 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso, with all due respect, the link you just provided to substantiate your assertion that "It's the Muslim editors who wanted to move this out of the Al Aqsa article" shows only that you did this on your own initiative after the suggestion of David Kernow, a first-time visitor to the article and the first respondent to the NPOV survey, who does not identify as Muslim. But if I am reading the rest of your words correctly, by saying "we don't care where the information will be" do you mean that you now would not care were this article to be deleted provided the references are maintained in other articles elsewhere?--Amerique ^dialectics 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Almaqdisi --Palestine48 11:19, 10 November 2006

Keep per Hummus. Here we go again. If this one fails, will there be another one next week?--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there has hardly been enough time to attempt any improvement to the article since last week's AfD, and so the reasoning from my last comment is still valid. Tewfik^Talk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hummus Hut 8.5 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a vote by Hummus, what does per Hummus mean? Are you keeping based on the content of the article, or the amount of time that has passed since the last AfD? Please clarify. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he meant is keep per Humus Sapiens who voted above. Amoruso 10:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous vote. This article merits no encyclopedic value, and does nothing but confuse the reader by citing non-authoritative sources! travel websites? you gotta be kidding me! --khello 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Third holiest site in Islam is Aqsa and I can easily back this up using reliable sources. --Aminz 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. While it is understandable that others might want to label other sites as being "the holiest" for various reasons... there's really only one group qualified to define what is "the third holiest" anything (meaning in that group's religion) and that is Muslims. This article is just a POV fork. There is only one true third holiest site for Muslims. Funny enough I just got done watching the documentary The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins where he (being an atheist) discussed Islam's "third holiest site" as being the Al-Aqsa Mosque. (→Netscott) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Almaqdisi's excellent research. --BostonMA ^talk 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only argument that can derived of that is to rename the article, not delete it. Amoruso 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what? Media confusion regarding the Holy sites of Islam? I guess I could support such an article. --BostonMA ^talk 13:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to Holiest Muslim sites. AS LONG as the third holiest site discussion is kept in Al Aqsa Mosque article. I'm afraid POV pushers will try to remove it. Btw, this "media confusion" allegation is false. Article based on sources like United Nations Development Programme and scholars of universities and more [92], it has nothing to do with "media confusion". 13:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You and I apparently learned different things from this excellent research. --BostonMA ^talk 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you obviously didn't notice that that post is based on a wrong premise which is that the article is based on media sources, which it isn't. It's based on scholary, UN evidence and so on. Amoruso 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references show that you are WRONG. The media and travel websites references are indeed majority of them . --- ابراهيم 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some are based on media, some based on universities, other researches, some on combined sources . Amoruso 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article references:

Asian Timse Online (with a broken link)
Heritage Photo Agency
Modarresi News
KavkazCenter.com
Zaman Newspaper
The Guardian
CNN
Associated Press
BBC
ShiaNews
IslamicTourism
Public Broacasting Service
And I'm not even half way through

Yet you state that that post is based on a wrong premise which is that the article is based on media sources, which it isn't.. Yeah, right. --BostonMA ^talk 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also based on and referenced by :

The University of Calgary's Applied History Research Group

Broken link --BostonMA ^talk 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not before, and it's irrelevant . Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Broadcasting Service

A media service --BostonMA ^talk 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly actually, it's non commercial and based on universities etc, read the article. Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Development Programme,

A broken link to an online newsletter sponsored by UNDP --BostonMA ^talk 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the links weren't broken before, and it's UNDP like I said, not understanding this edit. Amoruso 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Tennessee

Not the Univesity of Tennessee, but creditted to Prof. George Bowen of the School of Planning at the U of T. [93]. The website appears to not be a direct quote from Prof Bowen, but an unpublished (by Wikistandards) review of Prof. Bowen's work on the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus. by Patrick S. Obrien. (read the last paragraph). Not an expert qualified to report on the holiest sites of Islam. --BostonMA ^talk 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ? Says who ? Amoruso 15:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Religion and Belief: a World Report, authors Kevin Boyle and Juliet Sheen

African Union (AU) Experts’ Meeting on a Strategic Geopolitic Vision of Afro-Arab Relations Centre for Advanced Study of African Societies

International Security Assistance Force

Yet you state that the supposed "media confusion" is the supposed excuse for wanting to DELETE the entire article. Yeah, right. Amoruso 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As written above, I'd like to point people to the history of the article. [94]. This information was moved into a different article because of MUSLIM CONCERNS of UNDUE WEIGHT ON Al Aqsa Mosque article. Nothing to do with WP:POV forks or with anything suggested here. Amoruso 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if thoroughly improved This my-site-is-holier-than-yours-business has been around forever. Sectarian dispute, aided by scholarly opinion even led to minor warfare around this issue. (Alevites can tell you...) There still isn't consensus (not even about the 2nd holiest site, btw.), only a strong majority opinion. If, and only if, somebody would morph the article into a disinterested overview of the history of "holy-site ranking" disputes, the article has merit. As it is, it's just sectarian mud-slinging. Also, the name "Third holiest site in Islam" is obviously awkward, to say the least. But the concept has merit. Azate
Delete. This article cannot be maintained in a NPOV state. The reason for that is the fact that the article was created to settle scores in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that you could in principle have a bona fide article on this subject doesn't mean that we should keep this article. Similarly, if Neo-Nazis were to create an article about genocides with the intent of diminishing the Jewish Holocaust, you would have little chance that the usual wiki procedures would be effective in producing a NPOV article on that subject. Count Iblis 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only a violation of WP:AGF, it's an extreme personal attack disgusting and revolting. Amoruso 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 14:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacies (LARP)

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming group, article claims membership of around 50. Percy Snoodle 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Much like gaming clans, individual RPG groups are virtually never encyclopedically notable. No evidence in the article that this one has reliable sources or anything else setting it apart. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be mentioned in Disney Channel or elsewhere as appropriate, of course. W.marsh 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney 411

While I'm not entirely sure this should be an article, it's definitely not speediable, so I'm putting it here instead. No vote from me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 513 ghits. Should be a lot more for a notable TV show. MER-C 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remeber this, and i dont watch the disney channel. Chris Kreider 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Also, one's personal experiences with something does not necessarily make it notable. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are between program advertising promos (not notable), and there is no sources to verify any of the information anyways. -- Whpq 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Where's the sources. Totally non notable in every sense.scope_creep 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was the origianl short series on the Disney Channel, before the current Disney 365. If this absolutely must be deleted, then there should be a section for advertising shorts from the Disney Channel, somewhere put up on wikipedia. Sblngpedia11 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As reflected by consensus and overarching policy, people don't read encyclopaedias looking for a strictly limited amount of information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (spoiler free)

Content forking...for the sake of spoilers. We don't need "spoiler free" versions of the same article (here is the original article). That's what spoiler warning tags are for. This is almost as bad as trying to POV fork.

The following three articles are being bundled in:

-- `/aksha 11:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention, all of these violate Wikipedia:Content forking. They are also not within what is allowed for spoiler warnings, as per Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. --`/aksha 06:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another spoiler-free episode list:

List of The Sopranos episodes (spoiler free) Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost trying to make a WP:POINT --Steve 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is, in fact, content forking. One could also make the point that WP is not censored, and that includes censoring storylines. -- Kicking222 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fairly sure this actually is a WP:POVFORK. Not necessarily malicious in intent, but POVFORK in result. WilyD 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well-meaning but unnecessary fork.-- danntm ^T _C 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a pity this violates wikipedia policy, I found these articles(for stargate sg1 and atlantis) helpful. I've been using them to see the air dates without seeing an image and/or description of the episode to watch the episodes in order, since I've found nothing like Buffyverse_chronology_(tabulated) for the stargate-verse, both in wikipedia and the rest of the internet. 85.139.186.98 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that they are usefull, it's a content fork. Maybe the independent wikis involved will take up the lists for those who want spoiler-free lists of episodes. Robovski 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion: make policy that main Wiki episode lists be spoiler-free (cuts length, avoids spoils), and that detailed lists belong on a topic-specific Wiki. Then extend this to Pokemon, WoW and other cruft. After all, recording artist album entries (generally) just contain a track-list and technical details. -- Simon Cursitor 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored, and that includes spoilers. WilyD 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Having read WP:NOT, I doubt anyone would find this material objectionable or offensive (the criteria there specified), and what I am suggesting is not censorship, simply a relocation (with any necessary redirect) of information to elsewhere within the meta-Wiki. --Simon Cursitor 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (no vote)[reply]
  - Removing the information from the lists does not remove the information from all of Wikipedia. If the removal of information from one part of Wikipedia that still remains in another part is called censorship, then deleting this list would be censorship.MikeMaller 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not, because all the information is already at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes WilyD 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Likewise, the information contained at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes exists also on the individual episode pages. MikeMaller 05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the information already exists. But that the article violates our policy of no content forks and our "no disclaimer policy" (spoiler warnings are a bit of an exceptions to the no disclaimer policy, and what 'spoiler warnings' are allowed is detailed on WP:SPOILER.) --`/aksha 06:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michaelas10 suggested the creation of the spoiler-free LOE for The Sopranos. I am indifferent as to its fate. —Cliff smith 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It did seem like a good idea at first, as I saw many other episode lists using it. Although it would be unfair to exclude that certain list from here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I felt exactly the same way, actually. And as I said, I don't really care if it is deleted. Now I understand how it's rather unnecessary. —Cliff smith 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are useful articles, so why delete them? If policy says they should go, then policy should be changed. Blindly deleting things because of policy without considering if they are good for the encyclopaedia or not, is crazy. How does having these articles hurt Wikipedia? It certainly helps Wikipedia (by helping its readers that want to know what order episodes go in without having the plots spoiled), so if it doesn't hurt Wikipedia, they should stay. --Tango 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tango. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As the two above me noted, these are useful articles. I will also add that WP:POVFORK refers to a fork where two articles on the same subject have different viewpoints. The rationale behind the "spoiler-free" versions is more to provide a text-only tabulated list of episodes that doesn't take as long to load, than it is to be spoiler-free. Would these articles be acceptable if we changed the disambiguation to "(text only)"? --Alfakim-- talk 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out by the anon ealier up, Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) seems to serve the purpose of a "text-only tabulated list". Something like Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) is fine in the sense that it's really a summary article - collecting all buffyverse media into a chronological table. Where as a spoiler free list is nothing more than an "alternate version" of a pre-existing article. --`/aksha 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed this for a while, but didn't care to get in a dispute over it. I do agree with the nom; we shouldn't be making forks for the sake of spoilers alone.

It did make me think about possible ways to have such a second list but for a reason other than "spoiler free". If a list "without summaries" can be seen as useful and a logical list on Wikipedia, but for reasons other than hiding spoilers, then that might be worth exploring. One thing to note is that Stargate has 10 seasons, and images for each episode. That can be a hell of a page to load for some users. List of The Simpsons episodes (18 seasons) deals with this issue by having a main list that does not have images or summaries (making it free of spoilers, but more as a "side effect") and then has sub episode listings per season. Keep in mind that Stargate SG-1 is being dropped from Sci-Fi channel, and might not have future seasons. Still, even just 10 is a lot of stuff on one page.

I'm not sure if there is another method or rational that would allow for such a "spoiler free" version to co-exist with one(s) with summaries? Additional thoughts, ideas? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the spoiler free list as the main list and the spoiler list split into seasons would work quite well. It might end up with them all getting put up for deletion as not being notable enough for an article of their own, though. Over 200 screenshots on one page is rather excessive... --Tango 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use a spoiler tag on the spoiler list? Add a link to the category on the spoiler list. The category in effect serves as a spoiler free list of all episodes, since it shows only the name. If people really wanted to, they can tag the episode articles such that they'll show in the category in order (so like [[category:category of episode articles|episode number]]). Or on the spoiler list, have a spoiler free list of episodes first, then summaries below. There're plenty of ways to give readers fair warning without having to create redundant pages. --`/aksha 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the category was in order, it wouldn't say what the numbers were or what seasons they were in, nor would in include air dates, etc.. And putting the spoiler free list first and then the summaries would just be putting both pages on one page - if you're going to keep it all, it might as well stay on two pages. --Tango 12:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we keep all POVs about a topic in one article, then we may as well keep each POV as a seperate page? That's the same idea as what you're suggesting --> to cause a content split in an article. Which is meant to be a big no-no. Having the list first and then summaries would be just like putting both pages on one article, but what's wrong with that? Where as them as seperate pages is a problem because it's essentially a content fork. Wait, it's a content fork and a redundant page, since the "list" would exist on both articles, just that one of the articles also has summaries and the other doesn't. --`/aksha 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, where to draw the line? I can imagine a spoiler free overview articles on movies and books to be useful, and not to mention spoiler redirects. Go take a look at the spoiler policy talk page if you want to see how far that got. If this is just because of the usefulness of a summary-free list, then something like Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) covers it. List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (spoiler free) is basically a shortened version of Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) containing only the TV episodes, but serves no other purpose. Where as Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) does also serve the purpose of being a full chronological list of all Buffyverse media. Someone who wants a spoiler free list can just go to Buffyverse chronology (tabulated), although being spoiler free isn't its original purpose. --`/aksha 13:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about POV, it's about helping the reader find the information they want without finding information they don't want. There is nothing POV about it. What's wrong with having both pages on the same page is that it would be far too long - when pages get too long, standard policy is to split them in a sensible way into multiple pages, the most sensible way would be to split the list and the summaries into separate article, and you'd end up with what we started with. Yes, the information on the spoiler free page is redundant, put its purpose is not to provide more information, it's actually to provide less information. If we could have the spoiler page not including the info that's already on the spoiler free page, that would be great, but it wouldn't actually work (you can't have summaries of episodes without listing the episodes). --Tango 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uhh...splitting the article when it gets too long? I think you're forgetting, that the ultimate purpose of splitting a very long article is to make it into several shorter articles. This spoiler split doesn't solve anything. Because as you said, you can't have summaries of episodes without listing them. So we're not "splitting the list and the summaries into seperate articles" at all. We're "copying the list out into a seperate article."

And as i said, Buffyverse chronology (tabulated) serves the exactly purpose you described ("helping the reader find the information they want without finding information they don't want"). I'm sure other projects like stargate can find an equally sensible way to provide a list that satisfies the purpose, but isn't just a redundant copy of information from another article for the purpose of spoiler protection. --`/aksha 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't have the summaries without the list applies just as well to the summaries being at the bottom of one article as it does to the summaries being in a separate article. If you had it all on one page, you would have the list duplicated on one page, rather than spread over two pages. A chronology like the Buffy one would just end up being a spoiler free version of Timeline of Stargate. --Tango 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can think up with a good non-spoiler-related reason for a second list to exist. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NESkimos

Not notable Akaneon 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-this user trying to nominate "every article in Wikipedia" per deletion and was blocked for same. Bad-faith nomination. Seraphimblade 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~Changing to delete-Uncle G's very reasonable suggestion is correct, and this one doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BAND.~~ And once again a change-it seems some reliable mentions have been found and notability has been established, so let's keep it after all. Seraphimblade 12:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But on the other hand everything in this article does apparently come from the band's own web site, per the many external links from the article to that site. So let's subvert the bad faith nomination into a good faith discussion of how this band satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. Uncle G 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 675 ghits, nothing awfully reliable. MER-C 12:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your opinions of this coverage in Orlando Weekly and this interview by Planet GameCube? Uncle G 13:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESkimos. Uncle G 13:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This band was also on an MTV special. It suits notability criteria number 5.

This is user SaxIndustries - I'm not sure how to properly tag things in this discussion, but I thought I should mention, the NESkimos have been featured in Jacksonville's Folio Weekly (a weekly printed newspaper), there's a scan of the article on ForGreatJustice.org, here's a direct link: NESkimos in Folio Weekly

There's also an article from their appearance at the World Series of Videogames.

As well, they've been on an MTV Special, the top 20 videogames of all time countdown (I don't remember the exact title, unfortunately), and they had a brief mention in Spin Magazine last year. I believe these qualify for the WP:MUSIC criteria.

I will openly admit, though, some items on the NESkimos wikipedia article didn't need to be there, such as all that detailed information on the web forums, and talk of users going through hard times together, or whatever it said, that was all completely useless. But I do believe they are an important band, and a Wikipedia-worthy band at that.

-SaxIndustries

Keep. From what I can see, it passes WP:BAND. --- RockMFR 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete They are non notable and fail WP:MUSIC on a number of points. scope_creep 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't matter if something fails WP:MUSIC on "a number of points". It only needs to meet ONE of the criteria. --- RockMFR 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the criteria needs to be met, if you read the article. Gmip 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SaxIndustries provided plenty of information that proves the NESkimos are worthy of a Wikipedia page. TehBatman — TehBatman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~I apologize, I meant to say it qualifies for WP:BAND, not WP:MUSIC. SaxIndustries~~

Apparently, WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND are the same article. Either way, the text of WP:MUSIC states that if a band meets any one of the criteria, they are considered notable. Seeing as how the NESkimos have been the subject of various online and print articles, they are a notable band and can have an article on Wikipedia. - SaxIndustries — SaxIndustries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep It passes WP:MUSIC according to #5. "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media " At the very minimum, the world series of gaming and Folio. They have also, as said, been on MTV. --- Sanctusorium — Sanctusorium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep WP:MUSIC is met according to #5. "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media " At the very minimum, Folio and the world series of video games. They were also the center piece of the zelda section on the mtv video game countdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.234.254 (talk • contribs)

Comment: No user by this name even exists. Seraphimblade 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is, why this page is marked for deletion, but not, say, The Minibosses or Jake Kaufman, both of which are just about as big in the video game music community as are The NESkimos. I think the problem is, nobody in the video game music community really qualifies in WP:MUSIC, seeing as how a lot of groups have problems getting the songs licensed and are unable to release an actual record on a real label, which prohibits them from winning any major music awards, breaking into the mainstream, etc. It's an undergound kind of thing at best, but it is a fairly large movement, and these bigger acts do deserve their own Wikipedia articles. I mean, the NESkimos and Minibosses did both play at Penny Arcade Expo 2005, which had over 9,000 visitors (I'm not saying 9,000 were at the concert, but even 10 percent would be 900 people) which equates to a pretty large concert, even for some of the bigger mainstream acts out there.

The main point is, the NESkimos do in fact qualify in point five of WP:MUSIC, meaning the article should be kept. SaxIndustries

Keep The name of the show on MTV was "Ultimate Video Game Countdown". It was sponsored by MTV and Electronic Gaming Monthly. It originally aired on January 2nd, 2004. It was a 20 game countdown, and the NESkimos were featured in the segment for the number 1 game, The Legend of Zelda. If this doesn't qualify them under #5 for Musicians and Ensembles, then also consider that they are one of the foremost recognized bands in the video game cover genre, having wide recognition on the internet, as well as playing shows at The World Video Game Championships in 2006, Penny Arcade Expo in 2005 & 2006, and MAGfest 2005 & 2006, which should qualify them under #7.

Keep - Notability has been demonstrably and irrefutably proven. Score another loss for the deletionists. Professor Ninja 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the same reasons as most of these other Keep-voting people.

Keep - This is my official vote for "keep," for all the reasons I stated above. SaxIndustries
Keep per the evidence presented by SaxIndustries, appears to meet the notability criteria within our WP:BAND guideline. Yamaguchi先生 21:11, 14 November 2006
Keep the MTV coverage provides proof of Notability per WP:MUSIC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as non-notable spamcruftivertisment crystalballism. (aeropagitica) 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpy Chimpusgus

Characters from an amateur unpublished series yet to be released on ~~Google video~~MySpace. The bundle nomination also includes other characters: CoCo Nuts, Zileus Chimpusgus, Marcus Nuts, Boris P. Nuts, Junior Chimpusgus, Mr. Harley Davidson, as well as the main article about the series, Ape Hotel, all recently created by the same user. Prods deleted by author. --Nehwyn 11:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Ape Hotel will not simply be a Google video show. It will be something people can actually download (in low quality) and buy on DVD. It won't just be some goofy thing you find on You Tube. Also profits from the show will be partially split between GrASP and WSPA. It will also eventually be on tv. TheChimpanator 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - The above comment is from the author of the articles in question. --Nehwyn 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, TheChimpanator, cite sources to demonstrate that you are summarizing the existing knowledge about something that has already been documented, and to demonstrate that you are not, as it appears from both the articles and your rationale given above, mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, as a free web host, and as an advertising billboard for primary source, firsthand, never-before-published documentation about something that you yourself created and have not yet even published. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, not a free web host, nor an advertising billboard. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy it is not for documenting the previously undocumented. The places for that are books, journal articles, or your own web site. Uncle G 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, The information I have uploaded to these pages is simply an expanded version of information provided on their official site. Any other information comews from conversations with people involved and the episodes shown at Box Hill TAFE. TheChimpanator 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So... no reliable sources at all? --Nehwyn 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nehwyn you seem to have something strongly against these articles. Do they offend you in some way? I'd have thought official website would be up there with straight from the horses mouth but there you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChimpanator (talk • contribs)
        No, the articles have not been nominated due to their offensive nature (they have none), but rather on the basis of lack of verifiability and reliable sources, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can see you're a newcomer editor; don't be discouraged by a deletion nomination. Read the guidelines and policies linked in this debate and try and fulfill them so the articles meet Wikipedia quality criteria. If you do, they will most likely be kept. --Nehwyn 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone can create a web site and publish all sorts of things on it. That doesn't make what they publish true. (Remember the lesson of Jamie Kane.) This "official web site" is a MySpace page. When creating Wikipedia articles, don't use sources where you are just taking the creator's/author's/subject's own sole word for things. Use sources where other people, independent of the subject, and with names and good reputations, have checked facts. Uncle G 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all. Vanispamcruftisement. Note the will be in the author's pleas ablove. -- RHaworth 13:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all... per "yet to be released on Google video". Ugh. It doesn't get any less notable than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said earlier, this is not a google video, nor is their any plans for it to be such a thing, this is a real show that is just not quite there yet. TheChimpanator 13:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's actually right, my bad. According to the article, the venue is going to be MySpace.com, not Google video. --Nehwyn 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all - If this is deleted, i have noticed alot of new pages created today relating to this article. Chris Kreider 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, list them here! I cannot find any more than those already listed in the nomination. --Nehwyn 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless someone else is creating them then I don't think there are any more. I stopped making them after I kept getting this will be deleted warnings, now I'm just trying to save what I've already done but it appears no one else sees this as worthy. Again I say this is a real show that will be on real tv, maybe only in Australia but I know the people behind it, they're going to get it out there no matter what. They're just dedicated to the cause. It's a charity show and it means a lot to a lot of people...correction, there is one more page. Mr. Harley Davidson. TheChimpanator 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right on that one, I had put the AfD notice on it, but then forgot to mention it here among the others (corrected now). As for the rest of your remark... again, encyclopaedias are not for speculations and projects about the future; you can repeat that the series is going to be on TV as many times as you like, but please keep in mind that you need to quote reliable sources that it is indeed scheduled for TV (even just in Australia) if you want the articles kept. --Nehwyn 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so as the shows isn't technically out there yet and thus there is nothing I can do to save the articles, I will delete them myself and repost them when the series has offically debut on actual television, not TAFE tv or internet. Sorry if this has pissed anyone off. TheChimpanator 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well..um...having said that I don't actually know how to delete them so you'll have to do it i guess. It would have been great to just leave it but until the show is on tv there is nothing else I can do.TheChimpanator 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, admins will take care of the actual deletion. (Any admins reading this, please consider WP:SNOW early AfD closure.) Please, don't be discouraged by this; I'm sure you'll find other subjects where your contributions can adhere to Wikipedia standards! =) --Nehwyn 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There is nothing in these articles which says this is genuine and of note. scope_creep 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Tucker

In short guys does 20 years in Marine Corps and starts a small business making documentaries about Boot Camp. Is not notable enough to have a page here. Users other edits were adding links to sell videos on Boot camp page. --Looper5920 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See nomination. --Looper5920 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. — ERcheck (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close A guy makes videos, lets advertise then on Wikipedia scope_creep 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. An article could arguably be written from the two sources offered (even though "two" is at the very low end of "multiple") but this is not the article. Userfication on request if someone wants to write a sourced article that complies with our policies, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Schmelz

Fails WP:BIO, likely promotional - crz crztalk 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Only found 395 Google hits, but since he is German, there may not be that many German sites in general, since most of the net is in English. The articles I read seem to be teasing him, but whatever. I say err on the side of keeping, since he does seem to have some celebrity.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found this article about him in English. I don't read German or Portuguese so there may vdery well be similar articles in print in those langauges. -- Whpq 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough English sourcing to meet WP:BIO. There is not [95] and has never been [96] an article on him in the German Wikipedia, so I see no reason to believe the sources exist in other languages before someone actually finds them. GRBerry 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GRBerry, also see how this article started its life. There is nothing to indicate that he is notable or meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines at WP:BIO youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO with current sourcing. The fact that de.wiki does not have an article should be somewhat indicative of his importance. Alphachimp 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's on the borderline. The The Sunday Times (South Africa) article found by Whpq [97] is a good one, and there is one more that isn't quite as good but does seem to make "multiple independent sources", also from South Africa, strangely enough, apparently a reprint from the Cape Times: [98]. But it's weak, because it's really primarily about his book. I also don't read either German or Portuguese, but the hits returned in those languages seem to be about different people with the same name - students, scientists, sportsmen - and German, while it is not English, is not Swahili either; it is reasonably well represented on the Web, so I would not think there would be a wealth of articles we're missing. The rest is copies of his press release. And it is worrying that the article was written by User:Sandra Pires, since someone of that name shows up on the Web looking for "joint venture partners" to promote Schmelz's book. [99] So while I do think it should be kept, I won't kill myself to fight for this one. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO - clearly does not meet it. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. per AnonEMouse. The article looks promotional, but notoriety seems present nonetheless. --Oakshade 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Redirect optional. Criterion of significant independent coverage is invoked but not established (even after looking at WilyD's links, which contains only two items about this Bob Hurst) and the article itself is borderline A1/A7. ~ trialsanderrors 11:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Hurst

Mayor of a town of 8,000, WP:BIO - crz crztalk 13:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO, aside from being merely a guideline rather than policy, is not all inclusive. Really, the real question when discussing whether or not an article should be deleted is: Does its presence actually hurt anything? Kurt Weber 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not the question, because "Keep my article. It's not hurting Wikipedia to have articles on me, my friends, and the things that we just made up in school today!" is the perennial argument of people who want to keep bad articles. Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies is, in contrast, the simple elaboration of our Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy that Wikipedia doesn't have biographical articles for every person that exists or ever existed, and has been consistently employed for several years, now. So I suggest that rather than making the same bad arguments that the defenders of bad articles make, you make good arguments, citing sources, to demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied by thiIt is interesting to wonder whethers person. Uncle G 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need to, because those criteria are wrong and excessively megalomaniacal. Kurt Weber 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do need to. You're wrong, not the criteria. Perpetual stubs without scope for expansion have always been deletable, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy all the way back to 2003, and as I said, the WP:BIO criteria are simple elaborations of what WP:NOT has said for several years, too. Citing substantial non-autobiographical sources to demonstrate that there is scope for expansion will satisfy the primary WP:BIO criterion as well as the Deletion policy and What Wikipedia is not. But a lack of sources yields a 2 sentence perpetual stub, with no scope for expansion, whose information is already contained in the article on the town, and which is deletable per all three of WP:DP, WP:NOT, and WP:BIO.
      Only people can suffer from megalomania, by the way, not sets of criteria. Uncle G 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because something is written as policy does not make it ipso facto correct. But, anyway, the article is not destined to be a perpetual stub. I have several non-autobiographical sources of information; my plan was (and still is) to keep fleshing it out over the next week or so. Would everyone involved be amenable to closing this discussion until I (and others) get it written, and revisiting the matter later if some deem it necessary? Kurt Weber 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yea, this article isent hurting anybody. It isent the bio of some 13 year old, or spam. Chris Kreider 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a question of whether it's hurting anybody, is it? WP:BIO states that the following are worthy of inclusion: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". I did the dreaded Google test, came up with 104 hits for "robert j hurst"+mayor+princeton. Doesn't seem particularly notorious or particularly noteworthy. riana_dzasta 13:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO, aside from not being policy, also does not purport to be an exhaustive list. He exists, verifiable information exists about him, so any article on him that's not blatant slander should be kept. Kurt Weber 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is he notable, though? I'm not from the US, but there must be many towns with around the same population, and many mayors of said towns. Has he set himself apart from the pack? riana_dzasta 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - People deserve an article based solely on verifiable information now? Then I guess I need an article, despite the fact that nobody has any idea who I am outside of San Jose. -Amarkov ^babble 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, WP:BIO is policy. It's an accepted notabality guideline. That's why it's got the big checkmark. -- Kicking222 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going to put my inclusionist cap on and go: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)". That said, WP:NOT is a policy. WP:BIO is just a corollary of that, as Uncle G points out. riana_dzasta 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BIO. No ex offico encyclopedic notability for small town mayors. Bwithh 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while WP:BIO is fairly vague on politicians (and yes, every alderman in a town of 150 is probably not notable) ~ mayors are fairly important offices. I can find verifiable information about the guy here: [100] [101] and gnews turns up about a dozen articles in which he's mentioned [102]. Seems like he's unlikely to reach F.A. status anytime soon, but makes for a decent and worthwhile stub. WilyD 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm usually in favor of keeping elected officials, but a small-town mayor seems a bit too obscure. It seems a close call to me, but I think it fails WP:Bio. (I could see it merged into an article on the town, though.) I totally disagree with the "it's not hurting anything" argument. If WP was turned into a pile of non-notable articles, I'd consider that a harm. On WilyD's point, if we think this will never be anything more than a stub, I would argue that it may as well be deleted. --TheOtherBob 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious--WHY would you consider that harm? Some argue that it will bring disrepute to the encyclopedia; I fail to see how having more information than other encyclopedias can be a bad thing. The only reasonable argument I've heard is namespace pollution--and even that is easily resolved. Kurt Weber 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - just briefly, I see two harms. One is technological / financial (i.e. it must cost something to store extraneous data without slowing down access to the non-extraneous stuff). If there aren't some limits, then the infrastructure does eventually break down. The second is that an encyclopedia clogged with anything and everything is less useful and harder to manage. I'll stop there, though - because I think this is a debate better suited to the discussion pages of WP:Notability. --TheOtherBob 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Stub is most emphatically not a criterion for deletion. That said, if you look at the references in my original post, you can see there's enough there already to go beyond "stub" to "start class" or whatever you prefer to call it. WilyD 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he was elected Mayor, I cannot find any reference to him in independent media. A mayor of a small town who has never been in a media article is not notable. If someone can find more information refering to his notability then I may change my vote. Keep Mentioned in numerous media sources. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the allgedged harmlessness of letting non-notable people be in wikipedia, my response is that we are an encyclopedia, and if we let anyone in the we would no longer be an encyclopedia, just a directory. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must not be looking very hard - this very page already contained [103] ;) WilyD 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched under Robert, not Bob. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that'd do it. Which probably means if the article survives AfD that it should be moved. WilyD 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the town and mention him as the current mayor. It might make sense to mention the mayor of a town in an article. There is no need for a separate article on the man. JoshuaZ 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does mention him as mayor, but why is there no need for an article on him? Kurt Weber 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because he's not notable in the least. He exists, but he's not notable. --Charlene 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aside from the fact that notability is not policy, anything that exists and for which verifiable information can be found is indeed worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 12:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JoshuaZ, not enough information for an independent article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is indeed plenty of information for a decent start-class article; in addition to the links posted by WilyD, I have several newspaper articles in front of me that provide biographical information about the man. No, they're not in the article yet--my time to edit the article is limited during the day. Kurt Weber 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright, since info is already in city article. Small-city mayor, otherwise of no importance. I'd chide the creator for mistaking Wikipedia for a telephone directory, but his -- well, let's call it "alternate view of reality" -- goes much deeper than that. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have stated several times before: just because the article as it currently stands only consists of information in the city article, that does not mean that that is the only verifiable information available on the guy. And I fully understand what Wikipedia is; you simply don't appear to understand what userspace is for. Kurt Weber 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I normally lean towards keeping elected officials. But unless this mayor has done something pretty notable (which the aritcle doesn't assert) then I would argue that there is not inherent notability attached to the person.Montco 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I remind you that notability is not policy and that, therefore, perceived non-notability is not a valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, I am reluctant to expand the article if it's likely to just get deleted. Perhaps people should give an article a chance before listing it on AfD. If it's not a blatant speedy, leave it alone for a bit and see what happens with it. Kurt Weber 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While notability is not a policy, it certainly is a valid reason for deletion if consensus finds it to be so. What's more, improving an article cannot increase notibility of the subject. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on one particular debate does NOT trump policy. Furthermore, while improving an article does not increase the notability of a subject, it can add a claim to such (although it is not needed, as notability is not a valid reason for deletion) if it does not yet exist. Kurt Weber 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that consensus cannot trump policy, I am not aware that any policy exists saying notability is an invalid reason for deletion. And yes, you are correct in that providing proof can help demonstrate the notability of the person. The duration of the AfD should make that feasible. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...I only have a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia each day, and that time comes in small chunks (2-3 minutes). Furthermore, most people don't revisit these, so changing the article will do absolutely nothing to affect their suggestion in this discussion. All I can do is try to convince future participants that this should be left alone, and the time spent doing that is time I cannot spend working on the article itself. And if I can't keep the article from being deleted because certain individuals (including, quite possibly, whoever the closing admin is) choose to ignore policy or are too lazy to see if the arguments being posted are actually valid with regards to this particular article (admins have quite a bit of leeway when closing AfDs, but most of them choose not to use it and instead just lazily tally up the "Keeps" and "Deletes" rather than weighing the strength of the arguments and their relevance to the article as it actually is), then there's no point in working on the article any further, is there? See my essay, Wikipedia: Give an article a chance. Kurt Weber 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confusion is in thinking that this is a vote. If a person voiced an opinion to delete on the basis of a claim, then that claim is later disproven, and that person never comes back, then the following should happen:

An admin will see that the AfD is old enough to close
This admin will look at all the claims
This admin will weigh the claim based on if arguement is valid or not(considering available evidence)
If the closing admin sees that an opinion is based on an idea that has been proven to be inaccurate then that opinion will be given little or no weight.

What I am saying in a rather longwinded sort of manner is that these sorts of discussions are dealth with using common sense, and beyond common sense a sense of fairness and objectivity limited only by the personality of the closing admin. There is no simple vote count at the end, but a consideration of the ideas and opinions brought forth aswell as their justification.

Mistakes that are not corrected in time are accounted for. While this system fails once in a while, it generally succeeds in being fair. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm quite aware that it is not a vote. If you had bothered to read what I had actually written above, you would have seen that my point is that, while admins are supposed to do what you said, they generally are too lazy to bother. So an article that clearly shouldn't get deleted gets deleted.

Delete per above. I'd have just made it into a redirect instead of Afd'ing, personally, but that's just me. The only justification for this article is that this person exists. Anyone who understands the goals of the project knows that this doesn't cut it. Friday (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, that is sufficient reason to keep it. Seriously, what's the harm done? The purpose of an encyclopedia, after all, is to provide information.
  - I exist.--TheOtherBob 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No you don't. —Psychonaut 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ack!--TheOtherBob 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of non-notable municipal politicians. No—on second thought, delete. —Psychonaut 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton, Indiana. --Ixfd64 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no claim of notability. —Cryptic 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpys

non-notable sandwich shop. Earlier version speedied under G11, now re-created in pruned-back form, but still non-notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, appears to be just a sandwich shop. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shop does exist. Link at bottom of article pages proves this. Am also a daily customer. Bradleyspencer1983

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prive Safari

Non-notable company. Earlier version speedied under G11, now pruned back but still non-notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non notable or spam. Chris Kreider 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - still falls under G11, methinks. riana_dzasta 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, FutPerf, nice to see you aren't rushing into baleetion during your first week :) riana_dzasta 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heck, yes, still learning the ropes here. Thought I'd be conservative at first. Closing as speedy now. Thanks for the advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A straightforward G11 candidate, delete on sight. Ben W Bell talk 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Empires

The only third-party verification I can find that this online game game even exists are directory-style entries, so it doesn't come close to meeting WP:WEB. (The impressive results on Google are almost entirely in reference to Fantasy Empires (Silicon Knights), which should move here, or player-created Civilization mods.) No Alexa rank at all, if you're into that. Prod contested by an anon. —Cryptic 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PROD'ed this article, but I guess it is being disputed. I agree with Cryptic. My own searches found lots of "Fantasy Empires" but many refer to other games. I was not able to find any indpendent 3rd party sources for info. Wikilinks pointing to this article are usually incorrect as they really are referring to other games that went by the name of "Fantasy Empire". No sources, no verifiability, no notability. -- Whpq 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimateeconomics. —Cryptic 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimateeconomicus

Disputed speedy. Pure original research. -- RHaworth 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. riana_dzasta 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient energy exchange

This is at least one of (a) neologism, (b) misleading, (c). And lacks reliable, third party sources.

According to the definition of the article Automatic watches or solar powered Parking meters would be an example of Ambient energy exchange -- but neither is the term used nor is any nanotechnology involved.

Pjacobi 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've heard the term, but not in the context of a PRODUCT. Absence of reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^babble 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is describing a concept/idea/device which will become increasingly important as climate change starts to bite scope_creep 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scope creep. His Keep vote qualifies as a Delete rationale per WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is described is neither theory nor a practical device. If it were an actual device then clearly it should be kept. If it were a name of a theoretical type of device then I would expect to many reference to articles showing it was in common use. It is also highly likely that such a device is technically unworkable because interfering with the transfer of heat to create energy is a useful function in cooling the devices and maintaining low energy use.

--Mike 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buh? I think it may be describing either some method of converting brownian motion into useful energy, or its talking about the use of temerature differences to make power (a heat engine) OR it's talking about nano-film photoreceptors which collect solar energy and cound transfer that energy as infrared or its talking about a heat pump OR its talking about the devices in automatic watches and sea bouys. I don't know what it's really on about but it's not sourced and not clear. Robovski 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambient energy is valid scientific term (see Google scholar), it is used to be source of energy form MEMS, prototypes were built but the current article is beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief visionary officer

Was tagged with {{prod}} as an advert, but I don't think it is. However, I'm not sure it's notable anyway, so I'm posting it here for more feedback. UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 16800 google hits, but only one seems to be actually talking about the term. Thus, it doesn't meet WP:V. -Amarkov ^babble 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable jargon/consultant-speak. If the term is more widely used in a couple of years, by all means put it in then. But not now: not yet notable. WMMartin 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why has this got a page on Wikipedia scope_creep 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It's a real thing. You generally have to have a really big buisness to have a 'Chief Visionary Officer' but also you need someone wwho wants that title, like Steve Jobs, and so not all that common. The article needs sourcing, and could be better written. Robovski 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete neologism, does not really seem to be notable yet, even if there are a couple of famous people it's been applied to, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Xtifr _tälk 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the article's a mess at the moment (per Robovski), this role has been around since at least the late 1990s - I've added one citation.--Mereda 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glentoran Fixtures

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There might be a case for keeping this if it was being updated, but it's not. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glentoran F.C.. A page on the team is fine. A game-by-game log of their won-loss record (even if it were up-to-date) is not appropriate here. Fan-1967 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Make that Delete. I was thinking "Fixtures" was some sort of reference to the team. Apparently it's used here to mean "game results". Fan-1967 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a standard usage of the word in UK sport. A "fixture list" is the British term for what in American sport I believe is called a "season schedule" ChrisTheDude 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whack with the delete stick. Wikipedia is being used as a scoreboard now? Maybe Redirect if "Glentoran Fixtures" is actually used commonly enough. -Amarkov ^babble 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above about the meaning of the word "fixtures" in this context.... ChrisTheDude 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe we need a new heading under WP:NOT... →Bobby← 16:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even if it has updates. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's a football (or futball or soccer if you prefer) team's recent scores. If it belongs anywhere on wikipedia (and I'm not saying it does) it should be at the football club's article Glentoran F.C. I'll also point out that Category:Glentoran F.C. exsists as well, which contains this article, the club's article, and the article on their stadium. Nothing against the club article or the stadium article, but do they need a catagory? Robovski 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It also contains a subcat for Glentoran players, containing another 17 articles at present. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft/WP:NOT a news service regardless of whether it is regularly updated or not. Qwghlm 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Rakuten06 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Wiki is not Soccer Saturday doktorb _words^deeds 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Southgate

Advert written by this 16 year old's father. -- RHaworth 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 15 year olds are rarely notable (there is not enough TIME since 1991 for her to be 16), and this is not one of the times when they are. 171 ghits, none of which are actually about THIS person. -Amarkov ^babble 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might qualify for a speedy, but I guess the advertising is not blatent enough. As the nom pointed out, there is also reason to be concerned with the page's author. Check the history to find out why! (teasers on AfD never work that well) →Bobby← 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO they don't -- I suggest that if you have perjorative accusations to make, you do it openly, rather than by innuendo. Having looked at the page history, it does appear that the author may know the article's subject in a more than incidental way. Would you prefer it (I can almost believe you would) if any article about a person was required to be written by someone from a country at least half the globe away ? -- Simon Cursitor 14:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, but it IS much preferable for it not to be written by the person's family members. However, note that a conflict of interest can only bolster other deletion arguments, it is not a rationale in itself. -Amarkov ^babble 14:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Clearly non notable scope_creep 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to violate WP:COI. Ohconfucius 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable singer. But she can return when she establishes a career that doesn't involve just backing up her father.Montco 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ywam budapest

Blatant, first person advert. Probable copyvio from their website. -- RHaworth 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Youth With A Mission. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:VSCA (G11) Danny Lilithborne 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relax Guys! - this is a legit informational page. Everyone has one of those, EVEN YOU! If that is not the case, than lets kick out all the Sony,Phillips, BMW, etc. pages! What I see is that you are just acting in a discrimatory way, since this content has to do with religion! That is absolutly against the spirit and the concept of a FREE community encyclopedia! This article is not a propaganda, nor a advert! There many people in hungary, myself included who are intested in the charity work of YWAM organisation. This organisation is NON-profit therefore your idea of this article being used in commercial reasons is irrational! if you have any question or further comments please refer to me and I will gladly explain to you who YWAM and what it does. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE!
Delete Its irrelevant whether this is propaganda or not, the organization is still non-notable. You may do some good things. You may have some committed volunteers. But this isn't notable; Sony, BMW and Phillips are. Bottom line. Montco 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I DO NOT THINK SO hey montco - I don not really think that the organisation needs to be notable to be on Wikipedia. There is no such rule, plus you can not just favor big corporate mashines who make millions of dollars exploiting 3rd world countries and completely disregard non-profit organisations who try to make a difference. All I am saying is that YWAM is actually doing a lot for the communities all over the world and espacially Hungary! It will be a shame to bully an organisation that tries to make people's life better! See, your agruments have no weight because you have no idea of YWAM's charity work and commitment. By the way, speaking of being notable, fyi YWAM has regional offices in almost EVERY country of the world, that means it is registered in recognised in all of these countries(I don't think you can say the same about such huge corporations like APPLE or even GOOGLE! ), even the coutries where there is evident opression and persecution of religion. That is really ironic that those country's governments legally and in fact accept YWAM but this "FREE", "COMMUNITY" encyclopedia does not! My belief is that u are completely biased and the "religious" background of YWAM scares you.
Delete, ad. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some info into Youth With A Mission. Comment on previous comments: Everything on Wikipedia needs to be notable, if it is not notable, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. There are a whole bunch of guidelines you might want to take a look at, like WP:N. --Lijnema 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly falls under the WP:ORG suggestion that "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources." I see no use of independent sourcing to establish any such notability, so no seperate article should exist. Any merge probably should be to List of YWAM bases#Europe, but that list looks like it violates the WP:NOT rule against being a repository of weblinks. GRBerry 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Diron

Appears to be not notable. Misses biography info like first name etc. No google hits
Sander123 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i were calling this AfD, i would disregard this vote as a very low-quality argument. Nothing wrong with bio w/o full given name, if given name not public, and its stubbiness is not cause for deletion. What were your search parameters? There's something wrong with your test; see below.
--Jerzy•t 07:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a vanity article. scope_creep 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:VSCA (G11) Danny Lilithborne 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vsca are not speedy criteria; G11 does not cover this article, which is stubby but not inherantly advertising in nature, even if intent was self-promotion & advertising.
  --Jerzy•t 07:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del. Ghits are
22 of about 63 for "A. Diron" -wikipedia -"A diron dack"

(of which [104] and [105] appear relevant; not sure why his own page lk'd from bio is not a hit); more among
32 of about 61 for Diron musician tamil OR "sri lanka" -wikipedia

appear relevant) and his own site shows he has not yet issued a recording. Utterly non-notable. (But if he actually does something purchasable, as he states he will, and it sells notably, an article may be in order, bcz of it becoming worth advertising. Ah, the irony.)
--Jerzy•t 07:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - crz crztalk 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie-Perrin-Du-Tout

Clear hoax. "Migraine" the rocket scientist? "Perrin-Du-Tout" the French earl? Creator's only other edit was linking a different famous lesbian with Navratilova. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as total bollocks per WP:SNOW. Probably should have been speedied as db-nonsense. Absolutely zip, zero, zilch ghits. Tubezone 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most of this article plagiarizes Dr. Youssef Mroueh's "The forgotten genius: the impact of Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah's inventions in North Ameica." In order for the entry to exist in this form, the copyrights for the aforementioned work need to be released for use under the GFDL and attribution to the author made explicit in the article. El_C 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah

I nominated this article for deletion because it does not cite sources. I have not been able to locate any sources myself. It has been marked for cleanup since April 2006 and for lack of sources since October 5, 2006. Gerry Ashton 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the sources that have been added since the article was nominated, especially the patents found by User:Oakshade under a spelling variation of Mr. Al-Sabbah's name, I now believe the article should be kept. --Gerry Ashton 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates two of the three cardinal content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. For over six months the article was tagged for work and no one came and did the work. I foud mentions of this fellow and he was probably a real person, but there's no way for us to verify that he really did all the things this article claims. An assertion of notability is not the only factor. If an article doesn't cite its cources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. unless someone can come source this material. Paul August ☎ 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing some research, I've changed my mind. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that since this person died in the 1930's, there aren't going to be alot of web resources on him and I'm guessing the sources of this article have come from books. But I did add one web source from Today's Outlook Magazine, a middle eastern magazine. It might not confirm everything in the article, but it does verifiy notability [106]. --Oakshade 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This scientist seems to satisfy WP:N easily. Although the authors didn't cite sources, I don't think they were making all of this up. Per above, I added one outside source which does confirm the general importance of this person. --Oakshade 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable; already a well-built article--67.183.114.179 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I read the Today's Outlook article differently. If these inventions were spectacular, as the invention of arc welding or solar power cells would be, they would have said so. Is the TO article describing a notable person? On balance, probably not; is there somewhere like Technology in Lebanon, where this can be merged? Septentrionalis 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In science, not everyone is going to invent the wheel or the computer. Science is always a collaborative effort. And innovation always uses elements of previous innovations. For instance, this inventor created components that eventually evolved into the television (you'll notice there is no definitive "inventor of the television") Putting aside all the porn stars on Wikipedia, I think these things are not only extremely notable, but important. --Oakshade 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this inventor created components that eventually evolved into the television? There is no citation for this "fact". --Gerry Ashton 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the author made the article up and I think most people agree with that. As these are not controversial statements, I'm perfectly comfortable in waiting for someone to cite some sources, probably from a book (remember those?). --Oakshade 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inventions remain unsourced; and probably unsourceable. Septentrionalis 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that those points of the article are currently unsourced, but I strongly disagree that this scientist biography is unsourceable and that the editors made this person and his achievements up. This article is very detailed and put together. I'm guess this information came from books which were the primary sources of scientific knowledge before the internet age. --Oakshade 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a book, cite it; until then, these inventions are unsourced and unsupported. Septentrionalis 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF and common sense, I seriously doubt the editors made this person and all the detailed achievements up. Your position seems to now be "If the article is true, he's notable, but prove it's true." Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to let editors expand this article of this historic scientist and cite references regarding the articles' details. --Oakshade 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my position is that there is no source whatever for his having made these discoveries. Without one, they should go. Whether he is notable without them is another question; on which I will yield to consensus. Septentrionalis 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per [107] establishing notability as an inventor(during a very important time for invention in general). A person who died in the 30's will most likely be more in books than web, has anyone tried looking him up in a library? The article makes claims of notoriety, and this citation demonstrates that an outside source agrees. However the information recently re-added REALLY needs citation, because I checked his name and solar cell on google and only got wikipedia mirrors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find no obituary for him in the New York Times for the year 1935. I'd think he might have had one if he was considered notable at the time of his death. It's more than possible that I'm searching for the wrong transliteration - if anyone can suggest a better one I'd be happy to try again. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ keep (but it needs references) I congratulate the nominator for following good procedure. Marking for cleanup, waiting to get improvement and then nominating for AfD when it has not improved. The article lacks sources, the only notable aspect is 70 patents, but none of them appear notable enough to mention in detail. Given their background they sound a bit like my own father, and they too deserve to be remembered, but wikipedia is not the place!--Mike 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Oakshade, I've had another look at the entry. If all that is mentioned is true (and I can't be sure from the article) then this guy definitely deserves an entry just for his shear work. If the article can substantiate that "The original solar cell was invented and tested by Mr. Al-sabbah in 1930", even with a patent number, then there's no question about keeping the entry. However, I couldn't find him in google (was the internet invented in 1930?).--Mike 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't. See solar cell for the solar cell of 1883; Timeline of solar cells on Nikola Tesla, Edward Weston, and William Coblentz for patents before the First World War. Septentrionalis 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Administrator A couple of days after this AfD began, a user deleted a majority of the content in this article citing that it wasn't sourced. It was correct to insert a r&s prod but totally inappropriate to delete during an AfD as it could unduly influence editors opinions. In case the user deletes again, here is the full version ->[108]. --Oakshade 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, it will surprise Oakshade to learn that editing articles under AfD is encouraged. Since removing the unsourced exaggerations means the article is less likely to be deleted, I don't see his beef. The hyperbole about the inventions still has no sources; some of the claims therein are patently (as it were) false . Septentrionalis 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems a surprise to Septentrionalis that during an AfD editors need to know the existance of most of an article so they can improve it. --Oakshade 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The purpose of AfD's is not to improve articles; but to decide whether they can be improved. As it happens, removal of unsourced "information" is one of the ways WP does improve articles. Septentrionalis 06:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I noticed you deleted most of the article again (even after sources have been added) and called the editors work "trash." That appears to be a direct violation of WP:No personal attacks. --Oakshade 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major Verification Update Is everyone sitting down? Well, after checking the US Patent website, I found nothing under "Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah" or even "Al-Sabbah". But I got suspicious about the highly Anglofied nature of the US in the early 20th century and did a search of just "Sabbah" and found a TON of patents in the 1920's and 1930's by "Camil Sabbah" or "C. A. Sabbah" all related to electric currents and television transmission!! Here's a link to the rough list of US Patents from that period by just searching Sabbah" -> [109]. (after you click on the specific patent number, on the next page click "images." I had trouble viewing the imgages on Firefox for the Mac but had no trouble with Safari (Mac).) Needless to say I have inserted a bunch of these into the article. I'm tired now. --Oakshade 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Update Oh my. I've found the source for almost the entire contents of the article. [110] It's an essey written for a middle eastern magazine called Noor Al Islam. The Wikipedia article (except for the few editors additions) is mostly copied from this essay word for word. While the subject does seem notable, this entire article might be a copywrite issue. I went ahead and inserted the reference citation into the article, but I'm going to leave it up to consenus as to what to do about this. --Oakshade 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam S. Tracy

Article does not indicate notability. Can't find it on google Sander123 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcell Rodden

Rodden's friends created and edited this article. This is a vanity exercize by an irrelevent extremist. 198.96.86.4 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (note: 198.96.86.4 overwrote the first AfD with his nomination. I have created this page with his nomination text.) Kavadi carrier 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether he is an extremist in not relevent, but it does appear to be a vanity piece so delete and fails WP:BIO scope_creep 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the proof Rodden's friends created the article? Also, it's not vanity. I believe it was decided political candidates are notable for wikipedia entries, and I believe that's why it was created. Otherwise, the article should be merged to another article that lists candidates for the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. --Mista-X 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list I think you were looking for: Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ speedy blank and redirect He got a few more votes in 2006 (the first AfD was before the 2006 election.) He is active in ..., he helped organize ... and he was arrested (once) sound like standard campaign literature fare, rather than biography of a public figure. His political career may grow in influence; it may not. Until it does I don't see the encyclopedic value—Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sorry, nothing personal. Is there really a precedent for keeping articles on all election candidates? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's received only 84 and 170 votes in elections; and the article has been created and maintained by friends and the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, where is the "proof" that the article was created by a friend? --Mista-X 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of Rodden's friends admitted he created it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this, could you show this? Thanks! --Mista-X 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - maybe in a couple of years if he continues like this, but not now, not yet. --Leifern 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Rodden is not important enough for his own biographical page, but there's no harm in shifting the entry here. Btw, I have no connection to the subject. CJCurrie 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a promotional platform - and WP:AUTO seems to come into play here! --SunStar Net 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scope_creep. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CJCurrie. Interesting character. Let's keep the content even though he doesn't qualify for his own article. I have no connection to him. Ground Zero | t 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article that relates to Homey's absolutely non-notable political activism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability test. —Viriditas | Talk 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been merged, can this now be closed?--Mista-X 04:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I personally think that there is still too much unencyclopedic material in the merged ___location, I agree with Mista-X: speedy blank and redirect to Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, tagged {{R from merge}} to preserve history. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Beit Or 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:BIO, Tewfik^Talk 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; precedent has already determined that electoral candidates in Canada are entitled at minimum to inclusion in a merged list. A propos of nothing, should it bother me that I briefly had him confused with Marcel Hatch? Bearcat 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be some notability about this individual, and the article has already survived a previous vote and the consensus was to keep. I'm actually more than a bit concerened that this would even come up for a vote. While I haven't gotten involved (and will not get involved) this article seems to be part of a much larger "issue" between certain administrators. There's a danger that in an effort to one-up one another both sides are allowing their ideological positions to dictate their stance on certain articles and compromise the standards. Just my two cents. AnnieHall 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat and Hrothulf. Kla'quot 00:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been merged. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, like we have been doing with all other unsuccessful candidates for all political parties. Luigizanasi 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenshin

In its present form it contributes nothing to Wikipedia Peter Rehse 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems to have been recently blanked, after some disputes over content. In addition to that, the content has been moved to Tenshin Aikido Federation. Given the nature of the conflicts, I believe some consultation with an expert in the field will be necessary. Perhaps they could give direction to some decent sources or something. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No expert but I am familiar enough with the subject (see my user page and decide). I think the page should be re-directed to Tenshin Aikido Federation. Tenshin by itself is quite meaningless which was my biggest problem - if there had been content I would have moved it directly. I put a few links and categories into the Tenshin Aikido Federation page.Peter Rehse 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the Tenshin Aikido Federation has just been deleted for being blatent advertisement. Tenshin is a word that means heaven-mind and is used in the names of a number of martial arts the most notable being Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū. Personally if the word is going to redirect anywhere it should be there, since that school is about 400 years old. Tenshin is in the name of the aikido school founded by Steven Seagal and his then wife and as far as I know it is still called that although Mr. Seagal has no longer anything to do with it. Tenshin aikido is how some of Seagal's refer to what they do but there does not seem to be a consensus (read a whole lot of public sniping). The dojo of his ex-wife is certainly of a different type and has nothing to do with these groups. I now think the best path is a straight deletePeter Rehse 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article should be merged with Steven Seagal. scope_creep 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per scope_creep/Peter Rehse. Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term is just too ambiguous.Peter Rehse 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if the Seagal connection is the sole one for this term; otherwise delete until a proper, sourced, article comes forward. -- Simon Cursitor 14:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner Cable Rochester Channel Lineup

This is a list of TV stations and from WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a TV Guide -Bogsat 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not your TV Guide. Keeping this means keeping channel line-ups for every cable/satellite provider in every metropolitan area. And if more cities start deregulating cable TV service, this would get even further out of control. Caknuck 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ouch... This reminds me of when I was new to Wikipedia and tried to add a listing of flights from Syracuse to DC... Yes, delete as per above. -newkai t-c 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nomination scope_creep 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which criteria would you use from WP:CSD in order to speedy this? (aeropagitica) 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we going to have channel line-ups for every city on Earth? --Charlene 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sets a bad precedent to let this stay. Robovski 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 or just Delete as pointless, meaningless, trivial, non-notable listcruft. Good god! If A7 doesn't apply, I think it's time to come up with a speedy criterion that would! :) Xtifr _tälk 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid that I don't think there really is speedy deletion criteria that would apply. Still, Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information.-- danntm ^T _C 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you want another city's cable lineup, there's always zap2it.com... Kirjtc2 13:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We nor the cable subscribers of Rochester need this. --Oakshade 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The vast majority of this list is either original research or does not come from reliable sources. The concern that this was simply a list of WP:TRIVIA was also not adequately addressed. However. the trivia concern is more minor. I am therefore closing as delete with no prejudice against recreation with good sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

List of pop culture references in Warcraft

Hopeless pile of Original Research, impossible to ever reliably source, nothing but what individuals identify as seeming like a reference to another thing. 92 KB of random notes and zero citations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For why we actually need sources for this, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not grounds to delete an aritcle just because it does not have references. You should use Template:Unreferenced to mark the article as such. It is not impossible to reference such video game material, see Final Fantasy X for a good example how to do so. --Pinkkeith 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been marked as such for a while. As I said, not only does it not have any references, I doubt that it ever can have proper references. You show me a source that identifies what's a reference to something else in world of warcraft and then we can say that it's not just original research. Final Fantasy X makes zero mention of pop culture references within the game; this is nothing but. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the FFX article references content from a video game. It might not be "pop culture references" specificially, but the idea is still the same. If you really want to see references, why don't you add them yourself? --Pinkkeith 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the idea is not the same. "There is X in a game" can be cited to the game, but "There is X in a game and it is a reference to Y" is not supported by the game unless you do original research. The burden of referencing information is on those who add it to the encyclopedia, not those who question it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, the ideas are the same. You can reference "X" as per FFX and then reference "Y" as per whatever genre it happens to be in. Most of the list is common knowledge and doesn't need to be referenced. --Pinkkeith 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything needs to be referenced. The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. There are a lot of widely believed urban legends that are blatantly false, so common knowledge is no excuse. Deciding what is actually a reference and what's just a coincidence is a judgement call, and making those sorts of calls is WP:OR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You obviously never wrote a research paper before. You don't have to reference every little detail that is in an article. You only need to reference those that are either questionable or not common knowledge. For example, if I wrote up an aritcle on US Presidents I woulnd't have to reference "George Washington was the first President of the United States of American." If you are going to go around deleting articles sololy based on a lack of references then more then half of the database of Wikipedia will be gone. Just tag an article stating that you wish to see references, or better yet tag the specific points you want cited, but don't go deleting articles just because there is no references that meets your approval. --Pinkkeith 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not a research paper, it's a tertiary source. Even in a research paper you'd need some sources at the end, unless all you're doing is stating your own ideas (which we don't do). If I tagged everything I thought I needed a reference, I'd tag the entire article. Go read WP:V, then read it again, because everything you've said is contradicted by that policy. As it says, unsourced material may be challenged and removed by any editor. I've challenged this article, and now I'm saying it should be removed. Our George Washington article has dozens of sources to refer to for even "common knowledge" claims. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is researched, it is just not original research. "Tertiary source" is just a type of research. I think you need to go back and readh WP:V. You also took my George Washington example out of context, please reread what I wrote. --Pinkkeith 17:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not common knowledge if I don't know it. That's why you need to cite a source for verification. Can you cite a source for even one of the references claimed in the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you are right, it is not common knowledge if you don't know it. The George Washington example I gave you is a classic definition of common knowledge. I'm sorry if you didn't know that before I told you. Again, lack of references is not grounds for a deletion. If you really felt that there should be references then why don't you find the references and add them yourself? It is very clear to me that you just want to see this article deleted and you are trying to come up with any reason to do so, even if it isn't a rational one. --Pinkkeith 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Unverifiability is grounds for deletion. I say the article is unverifiable. Someone cites sources and proves me wrong and I'll change my mind. Only wanting to include content that complies with our fundamental policies is hardly irrational. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely because it is amusing. It is neither "original research", in that there is neither "novel narrative" nor "novel historical interpretation" in any of it. It's rather a matter of what people have seen and recognized as allusions in the games: the references are the games themselves, and the cultural references they are alluding to. This isn't the sort of novel interpretation meant by the policy, which was never intended to prevent people from making note of these sort of pretty obvious allusions. Merger to any of the main Warcraft articles is impractical: a compilation of this extent ought to have a separate article. There are other practicalities to consider here: if this article is deleted, the insights this article contains will be inserted in other Warcraft related articles on a semi-random basis. Best to keep this to collect them all in one place and keep them organized. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments" Unless you can cite someone else's source that something is a reference, it's just going on your own opinion. As for keeping it out of other articles, if it shouldn't be anywhere else, why should it be here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If somebody wrote "And this means the developers at Blizzard really like Napoleon Dynamite and think we should all vote for Pedro" that would be OR that would concern me. This is just something that anybody can observe. Now there may be the rare case where two observations don't agree, but that's another matter. It is also possible there are some good references as this article mentions some of the stuff in the article: [111]. FrozenPurpleCube 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) "Something anybody can observe" is most certainly WP:OR (as is "common knowledge" which in most cases the editor means "common knowledge to their demographic in their ___location", which is horribly systemic biasish). 2) Not everybody has access to the medias in question (WoW requires a subscription, etc) so this isn't something "anybody can observe". The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reference, however, is a start. ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something anyobody can observe is most certainly not WP:OR. You think that if I say the sun is in the sky is original research? Everyone can just look up and see that it is there, nothing original about it. --Pinkkeith 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I live in a box and say "I disagree" how can you prove it to me? I might live in a cave and come out at night so the sun is never in the sky for me. You'd have to be able to cite some book about the sun to prove your point. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, your agruments are very extreme and very irrational. --Pinkkeith 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment See User:Uncle G/On sources and content for an essay that talks about requiring sources for everything. Including "the sky is blue". ColourBurst 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is just one person's opinon. If someone wants to be a radical sceptic, that's okay. But we shouldn't be using radical notions as being a basis to delete articles. --Pinkkeith 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response about living in a box shows a touch of absurdity in your position. How is a book supposed to convince you that the sun is in the sky? It won't. You'd have to observe it yourself to know. This is a common problem in philosophy. See Plato and the shadows in a cave. For that matter, that you have to have a subscription to WOW isn't a valid objection, as it's still publicly accessible. I can't read a book without going to a store or library that has it, so I don't see a difference with WoW? Sorry, but your reasoning is not at all convincing, but rather detractory. You might convince me with some individual entries, but as a whole, no I can't agree. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's absurd, because the point is that wikipedia editors themselves are unreliable as sources of information, but they can point to other sources that prove what they say is true. The trouble with WoW is that these aren't internal to the universe or stated explicitly anywhere, they're all inferences that people make, and those inferences aren't there for anyone to check, someone else has to make the same inference to agree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but they are there for anyone to check. You can play WoW and see it for yourself. Or find some movie on Youtube in some cases. In any case, the arguments you used have served only to undermine your position with. Sorry, but I just find it hard to respect you now, you really haven't convinced me that your concern is truly legit. FrozenPurpleCube 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it absurd to think some people's knowledge of pop culture is different than that of the typical American's (or insert whatever country here)? Are we supposed to assume people know certain cultural practices in Japan when Japanese anime refer to it, for example? If not, why do we assume the same for this article? ColourBurst 19:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the absurdity is arguing that a person who lives in a box, and has never seen the sun will be convinced with a book that it exists. Your concern however, seems more like an argument for clarity in writing any entries in this list to fully describe whatever references there are. FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole page violates WP:NOR. Whisp e ring 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:NOR, keep. Whether or not this page is necessary, I don't know, but I'm not supporting a deletion on Original Research grounds. If you feel any of the references are too obscure to be obvious, then just remove those specific parts editorially. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think some can be removed for being obscure, you're saying the article is dependent on the editor's knowledge of the subject rather than any sources they can consult. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misinterpet my usage of the term obscure. By "obscure" I mean things that aren't necessarily references. In other words, if some character has a "Super Saykin" power, that's a Dragon Ball reference. However, having the same hairdo as Billy Crystal wouldn't necessarily be a reference. It still wouldn't be Original Research to say the hair was the same, but it would not be proper for inclusion unless the character was also named William Krystal or something similar to confirm the intentionality of the reference. In other words, this article does not violate WP:NOR, though some of its items may not really be references. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the bulk of the references are self-verifying through a simple comparison of the referring work and the work referred to. An example: the cheat "WhoIsJohnGalt" is undeniably a reference to Atlas Shrugged; there is no other plausible explanation. Those that aren't so explicit and obvious (I'm skeptical of the dance moves, and the supposed Jungle Book reference is a stretch) should be sourced or removed. Whether a statement of fact is so obvious that a specific reference is not needed is the kind of common sense editorial judgment we need to make all the time, and the comparison of quote X to quote Y to find that they are identical is not itself original research unless it is not obvious. Would you need a source stating that two biographies about a "Franklin D. Roosevelt" are in fact about the same individual named "Franklin D. Roosevelt" instead of two different people with the same name? Would it be original research to make that determination based on the obvious content of each book? Postdlf 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And if someone disagrees? what do you cite? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not our place to determine what is "obvious". This is a global encyclopedia - it is very possible that somebody who isn't well-versed in American literature to understand a reference to John Galt as part of Ayn Rand's literature. ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why Atlas Shrugged is also a cited reference, to show the origin of the phrase for those who aren't familiar with the book. I notice no one has answered my Roosevelt biography question. Why wouldn't a source be required for the assertion that the two books are actually talking about the same individual, if neither biography references the other? Postdlf 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't violate WP:NOR because the game itself serves as a source that can verify these. There are many other articles in this same format, and none have references on every point. I don't think they're necessary. There is room for improvement, some info doesn't seem like real references, but the fix is deleting the bad statements, not the whole article. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can the game itself verify "The male troll offensive spell cast animation is identical to that of a Hadouken" or "barrels = donkey kong" ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can verify the spell cast animation in Warcraft from the game, and verify the Hadouken part from Street Fighter. Both are sources, so no original research is needed. And is it really necessary to respond to every "keep" comment? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a discussion, not a vote, so I'm answering the arguments made. Yours just goes back to the same point: requiring people to look at two different things and make a judgement for themselves that they are the same. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the game and seeing for yourself isn't original research? I'm pretty sure it is. ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that isn't original research. Original research is coming up with a thesis statment and collecting data in order to support it. If this article was about a book do you think that going to the book and reading the book would be research? --Pinkkeith 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thesis statement: X is a reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is more like a book report then a original research. I don't really see "X is a reference" as a thesis statement for original research, it is more like a book report. --Pinkkeith 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        From Book report, A book report is an exposition giving a short summary of a book and a reaction to it. In other words, observing the primary source, summarizing it and then providing your own reactions to it. Your reactions (e.g. thoughts and opinions about the book) is the original research. —Mitaphane _talk 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        From the same Wiki article that you posted: Emphasis usually falls on aspects of the book related to the subject matter seen in an academic group of studies. This "book report" (or this case, "game report") is placing an emphasis on popular culture as it relates to the subject matter of the article. Reactions to something is not research, it is just an expression of an opinon. --Pinkkeith 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But Wikipedia is not for original research, or a particular editors interpretations, thoughts or feelings on a matter. It is for citable information that can be supported with reliable third-party sources, which this article isn't. The Kinslayer 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There is nothing in this article that expresses a recaction to the game or the popular culture references in the game. It just lists the references. The citable information is the game itself much the same way that a book reports citable information is the book itself. --Pinkkeith 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Any entry that categorically states 'X is a reference to Y' without a citation to back it up is putting down their own opinion and should not be reported as a fact, which is the whole point of Wiki. (Reporting facts I mean.) As an example (and I'm aware this may not be the best example, but oh well.) The Napolean Dynamite reference is based on dance moves. However, Napolean Dynamite himself is aping Jamiroquais dance routine and is indeed dancing to one of his songs, so it would be just as likely that the designer who put the dance in was a fan of Jamiroquai and not Napolean Dynamite. For all we know, without an official statement, the designer has never even SEEN Napolean Dynamite. Without a citation, what we have is just one editors opinion of what the dance is reference to. And it's not just this one entry, I'd say 90% of this article falls under the same description. The Kinslayer 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for unencyclopedic fancruft, although certainly enjoyable. The problem here is that it's not really original research or any of the other obvious reasons for deletion. It's simply an extremely long article on what is basically trivia. There's no particular educational or cultural significance to any of this information, but it is probably all accurate. In fact, my guess (without looking at the article history) is that it was once a part of the main World of Warcraft article and was spun off by editors who realized it would always be unworkably long and didn't add anything to that article from an out-of-universe perspective. It's not a bad article, it's just one that more appropriately belongs on a fansite instead of this encyclopedia (in my opinion). -Markeer 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do agree with you that it is trivial knowledge, but if it is fancruft I'm not 100% sure of. I can see where someone who has no interest in video games might think so, but there might be others out there where this could be interesting knowledge, even if trivial. Your guess about its origins is my specultation too. --Pinkkeith 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say that the list is a compilation from all the Warcraft games. Now this may not be something you personally care about, but there are folks, like me, who do find it interesting. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read a bit further down, as I don't like it is also a bad argument. Popular Culture is itself a subject of established notability. You can find it on places like imdb, eeggs.com or a dozen others. Not to mention books and television shows. FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one person's opinon, it is not Wiki policy or a guideline. --Pinkkeith 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to quote Wikipedia:Common knowledge: "as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source." There are no reliable published sources for the claims of this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're taking that quote out of context. I don't think that the editor meant that you should reference "the sky is blue" or other common knowledge statements. There is a line that has to be drawn to week out the radical sceptics. --Pinkkeith 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, "the sky is blue" isn't always a correct statement. During a sunset, it is reddish-orange. During night, it is black. In fact, the sky article actually has a reference for "the sky is blue during daylight" and gives the reason why it is blue. ColourBurst 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly the point that Uncle G's essay makes--you need to cite those things, and you end up with a more accurate encyclopedia for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these things are cited. But you just seem to dislike that the game itself is the source, as well as the other works mentioned. Citing every item would just be putting a reference to Warcraft and a reference to the other item (the Fountainhead etc) on every single item. "The sky is blue" is a terrible comparison, since the sky isn't a source while every item on this list is. "Common sense" or "obvious" has nothing to do with this discussion, neither is required since every fact can be verified simply by looking at the sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - They can be sourced for their existence in the game, but not the analysis of them as references. As I said above, you can cite "X is in the story" to the story, but not "X is a reference to Y", because WoW never states that explicitly, so we make original inferences. For example Themes in Ran may be obvious to anyone who watches the movie, but we can't just find them ourselves, we need to cite the analysis of others. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If Warcraft contains "Who is John Galt" and Atlas Shrugged contains "Who is John Galt", no analysis is required to see that they are the same. This isn't a list of themes, it's a list of things that are the same. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you challenging the informations presented in the article? Because you believe that they are false, or because you want to see the article deleted? The former is a valid reason, the latter could be interpreted as making a point. If someone points to an entry in the article and honestly says "I don't think this is what they meant", then yes, it needs a source or should be removed. But challenging the whole article on principle isn't going to (or shouldn't) work. --Conti|✉ 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I don't believe it can be supported by sources. Verifiability, not truth. They may all be true, but it's not verifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Verifiability, not truth" is important, yes. We have to draw a line somewhere, tho, otherwise we'd have to put shiny <ref> tags after every single word in every article. We don't do that, of course, we only do it with things that are not obvious to everyone or are otherwise contested. Contesting things because there are no <ref> tags is silly, in my opinion. I'm not voting because I don't know if this topic is actually notable or not, but I don't really see a problem with WP:NOR here. --Conti|✉ 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We should be able to add those tags to counter any challenge made, even if we don't actually cite every word, but I don't think we actually could find a source for the things said in this article, unlike the example of the sky being blue. if you can show me a reliable source that says the spellcasting animation for some class is the same as the hadoken then I'd say it could be verified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Definetely violates WP:NOR unless you show me a book, a magazine/newspaper article or official site with this list. It's fun to read such stuff, but this isn't a notable subject to merit it's own article. Another thing is the absence of using "summary form" as intended when writing articles, therefore the article also violates WP:NOT because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." - Tutmosis 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need the entire list for some reason, or will individual entries qualify? And I disagree with your claims of non-notability. WoW is notable. Popular Culture is notable. Popular Culture in WOW is also notable, since you can read articles that cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I'm a little confused, what you mean by "individual entries"? ALso I'm less concerned with notability than it violating WP:NOT per above. - Tutmosis 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also I understand how you people feel. The page isn't hurting anyone and provides random intresting information. But rules are rules, and we can not make exceptions therefore we must uphold wikipedia policies despite our personal wants. - Tutmosis 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grr... sorry last comment. When we refer to "Popular Culture" for an article, we refer to how the subject impacted it. Not, all popular culture references that are made by the subject. That's considered "indiscriminate collection of information". If WoW had a huge impact on culture, and you could not contain it on the WoW page, then yes a subpage should be made. - Tutmosis 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - By individual entries, I mean each individual entry in this list. For example, above, I found an article that described the Cannonball Run and Big Trouble in Little China refererence. I also don't agree with you that we list only a subject's impact on popular culture with references to it(which is in the World of Warcraft article right now), but also in the cases of certain content, describe the references in it. See many episodes of TV shows for numerous examples (from Robot Chicken to Pokemon and Sailor Moon). I suppose you could divide WOW into individual quests and areas, with sections for this sort of thing there, but I believe that would actually be detrimental to Wikipedia, since it would make it more of a game guide. So, in preference to keeping information, having one article on the MMORPG's pop culture references is my choice. You may also wish to look at the In Popular Culture category. FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't anything "indiscriminate" about this article. It is a logically collection of information about the popular cultural references found in Warcraft games. --Pinkkeith 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very poster child of original research. You should not have to pay Blizzard to play an online game to verify an article any more than you should have to build a nuclear reactor in your backyard to verify Nuclear fission. —Cryptic 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't original research. I'm beating a dead horse. I do agree that you don't have to play the game to verify it any more then I have to read books to verify other information. The references used (if they need to be used) should reflect the ones found at Final Fantasy X. It is a good example of how to site information taken from a video game. --Pinkkeith 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the Final Fantasy X article is stylistic genocide... I suppose it's slightly better than blanket referencing the game script, but not by much. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "You should not have to pay Blizzard..." Why not? I have to pay the New York Times to verify an article there. I may have to buy a book on Nuclear fission to verify content referenced in it. WP:NOR makes no distinctions about how easy it is to get access to a source, or if it costs money. A source is a source. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete While I do believe this does violate WP:NOR, I understand that many disagree. However, there are several other problems here. Not only is this a rather arbitrary piece of listcruft as well as fancruft, it's an article consisting entirely of trivia. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that, while trivia isn't outright banned, trivia is highly undesirable and should only be kept in new articles as a way of suggesting things to be converted into prose with the eventual goal of removing trivia from the article. That makes it pretty clear that trivia with it's own article is far worse and totally unnecessary. Are we going to have an article for 'pop culture in...' for every piece of fiction, every game, every movie? I'd certainly hope not. --The Way 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per The Way. First, "Karate Kid — One of the bosses in Naxxramas instructs his students to 'Sweep the leg,' a line from the movie." Is that really a reference to Karate Kid - and not any of dozens of other martial arts movies? Fans could debate that ad infinitum - and any obscure trivia that fans could debate ad infinitum is probably not encyclopedic. I'm sure there are some references in here that couldn't be debated - where the reference is crystal clear. But even there I don't think it would be an appropriate article for an encyclopedia, any more than a FAQ/Walkthrough would be. It's practically a list of everything funny that happens in the game, decoded for the culturally illiterate. I'd say delete. --TheOtherBob 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can any of this be verified without direct observation of the game? Combination 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "No, because if you don't play the game, you're just taking someone else's word for it, and that is not verification at all" but that said, such word does exist. For example: [112] [113][114] though I know this is only the tip of the iceberg, and not the whole thing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright to rely on the game to describe what the content of the game is, per WP:OR and WP:RS; the game is self-verifying as to its own content. Postdlf 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or transwiki to a WoW wiki since many editors want to keep it) per nom. This is original research. To those who say otherwise, an observation doesn't make it original research, but labeling an observation a pop culture reference with no citation does. For example, lets take the entry on Fable:

Fable—In the Undercity, there is a NPC named Theresa that wandersaroundaimlessly. She is blindfolded and is a mind slave to one of theUndeadcharacters in the game. This is most likely a reference to ablindcharacter of the same name in Fable (itself a reference toclassical mythology)

How do we know this is a reference to Fable?WoW has a lot of elements of classical mythology. It's just as likely areference to classical mythology as it is pop culture. Likewise, how dowe know "Hanzo Sword" is a reference to Kill Bill? It could be areference to a weapon wielded by the samurai, the Hanzō in Kage no Gundan(the show that Kill Bill makes a reference to), or a number of other Hanzōs in fiction. If we had references we could verify this, but we don't. The article is interesting(and most likely true in a lot of cases), but it is not for the Wikipedia. Mitaphane _talk 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the list contains some dubious entries is not questioned by anyone, and you hardly make your point that the list is entirely OR by zeroing in on some of the least substantial or incorrect references for criticism. Postdlf 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making the point that the list is entirely OR. In fact I also said, this "article is interesting(and most likely true in a lot of cases)". Rather I was using examples from article to point out how the topic is tied to original research. Instead of keeping up this argument, why not address some these issues in the article by cleaning it up? You hardly make your point this topic is not OR by letting bogus references stand and not finding references for legit claims. —Mitaphane _talk 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It's Original research (referenced or not), many connections are only according to contributors, it does not demonstrate its notability (as Tutmosis said, "When we refer to "Popular Culture" for an article, we refer to how the subject impacted it"), and, therefore, it's an indiscriminate collection. Whew. Delete this before someone adds about a blood elf's "hey, get back here!" line coming from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Garrett^Talk 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Per nom and Garrett. Is this article interesting? Maybe. Is it encyclopedic? I don't think so. Save it for the fansites. The Kinslayer 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - editors interpreting primary sources are engaging in original research, this sort of stuff needs a secondary source (i.e. a comment from the creators of WoW). Stick to reporting primary sources, don't interpret them. A high degree of cruftitude and WP:NOT-ness in its indiscriminate list variety is not a plus point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per above. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate on which specifics your agreeing with? Or are you just parotting what appears to be the popular vote? The Kinslayer 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't call this breaking WP:NOR as the games are the source. The entries that as "sketchy" can easily be removed. No need for a delete. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removing all the OR and sketchy info would leave this article with about 4 sentences. This article is irretrievably flawed all the way through. The Kinslayer 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fail to see it braking OR when the game are the source as stated above. But, I've changed my vote to abstain as I created this article, and I don't think I should vote on it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking through the article, I could easily provide alternative suggestions for most of the references and in-jokes listed. Without an official confirmation that something is a reference to this that or the other, what we have is people providing their interpretation (i.e. Original Research) of what they are seeing. And a lot of the so-called 'references' are tenuous at best, down right awful logic at worst! The Kinslayer 13:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Then talk about it on the talk page, I thought that was the reason we had them? To discuss additions/changes etc. to the article. But I guess putting something up for AfD is much easier then actually trying to help the article and fixing it. Regardless of how you or others feel about it, not everything in the article has an "alternative" explanation and not everything breaks WP:NOR. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, that's just your opinion (and one you make in practically every AfD you respond to). I think the article should be deleted and said so here. Why should I be expected to contribute and help clean up an article I don't even think should be here. I think it DOES break WP:NOR, and I'm not the only one. Looking at names, most people who want to keep the article are those who contributed to it. The Kinslayer 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to sound uncivil; But what you are telling me is that people who contribute vote keep? You could have knocked me over with a feather. Havok (T/C/e/c)
      - Ah, sarcasm. Awesome. What I'm suggesting is that the contributors are being selectively blind to the flaws of this article. I'm suggesting that had you come across this AfD and hadn't contributed to the article, you would probably have voted to delete it. (NOTE: I don't mean you as in Havok, but rather a collective you, and I'm sure this is where people who have said 'keep' will jump in with 'As a matter of fact I'd have said 'keep' regardless of whether or not I contributed.') Can I knock you over with that feather now? The Kinslayer 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of amusing observations (WP:TRIVIA), not knowledge. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, trivia is knowledge, it is just considered unimportant. Please read the link that you posted, the editor makes the same claim. --Pinkkeith 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - EVERYONE uses that excuse to try and convince people to keep a certain article. By your definition, if trivia is knowledge, yet considered unimportant for Wikipedia, then this whole article is unimportant to Wikipedia. The Kinslayer 15:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Something being important or unimportant is an opinon. To me there are many articles that are just trivial information to me, but it might be considered so to someone else. Just because someone believes or disbelieves that an article is trivial doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't be deleted. --Pinkkeith 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I thought that was the whole point of an AfD, so people could try and find a consensus between those think the article is trivial and deleteable and those who think it should be kept. But by your own arguement, like I said, this article is unimportant due to it being trivia. (As a matter of fact, I can't find anyone claiming this anything more important than trivia. No one is denying that fact, they are just trying to say it should be kept despite it being trivia.) The Kinslayer 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, this AfD is about references, not about the trivial or non-trivial of the information contained therein. Yes, I do think it is trivial, but that is not a reason to delete an article. --Pinkkeith 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's certainly not the only thing we're discussing, but it is on the list of things. That an article is about a subject that some would consider trivial, but which is nonetheless notable under the WP standards, is not a reason to delete. However, when an article exists only to provide trivial pieces of information about a subject (notable or not), that is a reason to delete. Think of it this way - there's an article on Monty Python's Holy Grail. There's a lot of trivia that you could list about that movie - if you wanted to include a list of jokes, funny bits that get repeated, etc., you easily could. But you may as well just include the script instead - if the trivia is so trivial and so inclusive that it more or less just restates the movie, then it's just an indiscriminate collection of information. I think this article is pretty much along those lines - so the fact that it's stuffed full of trivia is a reason to delete. --TheOtherBob 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        See, that's where I disagree. A list of every character in WOW would be entirely trivial. A list of every item as well. A list of those who by virtue of their name choice or other characteristic have a unique character that causes people to recognize them as references to another thing is not trivial, even if it was trivia. Perhaps it's just a result of pepole using the same word, but with different meanings. That said, the Monty Python and the Holy Grail article currently has a section equivalent to this article. It's got about 50 entiries in it. There's also at least a few daughter articles based on characters in the movie. FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually the Holy Grail article's section (while itself completely out of control) is the exact opposite of this - it's a "cultural references to this movie" rather than "cultural references in this movie" section. The former establishes the place of the movie or game in the culture; the latter establishes that the movie or game is...full of references. I see this list as equivalent to the first two things you cite here - except that this is a list of every joke / reference in the game. I don't really think I understand why that wouldn't be trivial, any more than a list of items or characters would be. --TheOtherBob 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The point I was making is that they are equivalent, I recognize that they are sort of mirrors to each other, but the information is of the same nature. Especially since you can also find the same information in the articles about the various TV/games/whatever that mention MPaTHG. (Not always mind you, but I doubt that's a conscious decision as opposed to a quirk of editing). And no, it's not every joke/reference in the game. Just the ones that are pop culture. Think of it like a phone book (Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a phone book). You can have it listed by name. Or by address. Or by Telephone number. This article is effectively then, a reverse look-up directory. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok - in fairness I still don't see your point, given that the former provides cultural context for the subject, whereas the latter merely describes the content of it. But I don't think it's important, because I don't think the Monty Python section could stand on its own in any event. Let's assume that you're right, and that this is equivalent to the type of thing in the Monty Python article. Would you include a stand-alone article that was just "List of References in Pop Culture to Monty Python"? As a part of the Python article, they add a little value - but they're not a full article. Similarly, I can see a few of these cited in the WOW article to show that the game is "reference-laden," but don't see it as a full article. --TheOtherBob 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reducing indentation for convenience) Yes, I could see such a list being made an article, if it was desirable to reduce the size of the Monty Pyton main-article. Given that it is a movie though, there's only a limited amount that can be said about it though. But that's beside the point, the real idea is that the content itself is not inherently objectionable. Since it's not, it's worth looking at the subject matter, which is the very content-rich World of Warcraft game. WoW isn't a single movie of fixed length, or even a series (and I note, there is a lot of Monty Python content on Wikipedia), but rather a large created environment with a fair amount of content. That means deciding what articles and information aobut it Wikipedia should include are different from any movie. More extensive is likely to be one of them though. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My entire point about saying that it should be deleted on grounds of it being "trivial" is unjust. The notion of something being trivial (something that is interesting, but unimportant) is largely opinon. I think that all of the articles in Wikipedia is interesting, but in the larger scheme of things, it is not very important. In fact, encyclopedias are in my opinon simply books that contain tid bits of trivial knowledege the important and non-trivial information is usually contained in the references that they cite. No one at the college level would (or should) every use an encyclopedia as a reference for a paper because of this. The same is true with Wikipedia. --Pinkkeith 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: On the one hand, it might be possible to write a list called List of possible pop culture references in Warcraft with entries like "After defeating a group of spiders in the wastelands, characters can obtain a sword called Stung "(citation) In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins obtains a similar sword, named Sting, which he uses in a battle against spiders.(citation). On the other hand, (1) this article doesn't even approach that sort of neutral, non-OR presentation, and (2) it would be pretty crufty even if it were written correctly, possibly enough to implicate WP:NOT. On balance, though, I think that most of the information could be included in a non-OR fashion and properly cited, and it seems to have interested readers, so weak keep. TheronJ 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is valid, and a large number of items on the list are valid. I'd want to see a better source for some of these, such as the dance moves, or else see those entries deleted, but many of them require no external verification as they are obvious. Deco 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; I don't know if this is mentioned or not, but if we state something like "An NPC on the shores of Lake Lorderon is named Nancy Vishas; Nancy Spungen is a deceased girlfriend of former Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious", does it count as OR? If it does, then delet. If not, major overhaul?-- ¢² Connor K. 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and clean up, This doesn't smell like original research, it's to big to be in the main article. Some referances might be streching it, that can be resolved with a clean-up.Armanalp 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CCM the article to World of Warcraft.--TBCΦtalk? 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though it might seem like a good idea, I don't think it should be merged, even if cut down and cleaned up. World of Warcraft is big enough as it is, which is the reason many articles that could have been a part of the WoW article have been split up into separate articles. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This article fails Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tristam 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see nothing warranting the article's deletion. AfD is not cleanup. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per CyberSkull. People need to stop deleting information instead of cleaning it up. Additionally, [thottbot] is a good start for sourcing. -Ryanbomber 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDRA Testbed

Doesn't seem to pass notability issues. Have had trouble finding much reference to the company. It is also curious that the creator of the article is User:LDRA. It has been speedied (perhaps prematurely) at least once [115] and has been renominated for speedy deletion which was then removed [116]. Hopefully this will end that debate. Joe Jklin (T C) 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable also seems to be WP:SPAM. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the {{db-spam}}. The Google scholar Google results are not insignificant. Some of the mentions appear trivial, some are authored by the founder, but does seem to have been given reasonable coverage in the technical press as demanded by the proposed WP:SOFTWARE guideline. This incarnation has potential CoI issues, but a previous version was authored by Derek farn (talk · contribs).
Comment If someone wants to smerge it (Static code analysis may not be an appropriate target), that's fine by me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does seem to be a significant product per angus. meshach 03:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has potential CoI issues but the software's real enough and is used extensively in the safety-critical systems industry. Probably belongs as an entry in a list of such tools... Pete Fenelon 02:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Wright

Previously prodded. I really don't see how this meets WP:BIO. Notability by association just doesn't do it for me. Delete GringoInChile 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senior official in White House, responsible for finding people to be nominated or appointed by the president. References demonstrate notability. Don't be misled by the "assistant" title: She has a lot of authority (and can do a lot of damage if she makes a bad recommendation). --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can the White House sommelier. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty important to me, too. If she doesn't meet WP:BIO specifically, the whole "just because they don't meet the specifications doesn't mean they should be deleted" clause certainly would apply here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more empty handwaving. You see, if you're going to argue for an exception to ordinary standards, you have to actually explain WHY, as opposed to saying "just because!". --Calton | Talk 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your general concern into consideration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO, the article needs expanding, not deleting. Kathy A. 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This position sounds like a routine mid-level bureaucrat, not a notable policy position. The only sources are press releases and some sort of blog or advocacy site, not the multiple non-trivial independent coverage we associate with notability. --MCB 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find other biographies of previous "Special Assistants to the President for Presidential Personnel," and I don't see how likely this is to be expanded upon. If her role is so minor that I doesn't warrant its own article, I fail to see how she deserves one. Salad Days 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The screenwriter for one of the highest grossing films if the 1940s didn't have an article until about a month ago, either. Just because her position is redlinked has nothing to do with its importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does fail WP:BIO on at least 3 points. The women is in HR and has nothing notable about her. scope_creep 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes she has a big job, but I cannot find a mention of her in any media. The closest thing I can find to a critical commentary on her is at www.politicalchicks.com. Not notable, despite position. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the legions of paper-shufflers in the bowels of the West Wing. Not notable, period/full-stop, and certainly NOT because of the position. I see that the big sources here are two White House press releases -- VERY reliable source there -- a university interview, and "politicalchicks.com". Unless she gets into the news because someone she hired spikes the President's coffee and she gets blamed for it, uh uh. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought about this one overnight, and it just isn't a big public-facing role. If somebody turned up some connection to K Street (and I have no doubt they exist) or Abramoff, that would be one thing, but there are hundreds of people working in the EOB who have enormous influence on one thing or another but are not individually notable. Wikipedia is not a government directory. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An executive recuiter working for the head of an average company wouldn't be notable, but she does this for the most powerful person on earth. --Oakshade 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She works for Bill Gates?? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree her role is important but she is not notable. Trying to squeeze her in through WP:BIO under the news coverage rule fails for the reasons already given above. She does not qualify under any other rule I can see. Ohconfucius 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, trying to search for her in Google News comes up with Zero hits, so she doesn't even get media coverage appart from those select press releases from the White House. GringoInChile 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes its an important job. But she isn't a notable person. Lots of people work in the White House and do important things but they shouldn't have articles either. Montco 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The position is significant. The appointees have been both important and, in some cases, politically controversial. The public needs to know more about how the American executive branch works, not less.
Delete - lets think of 100 year test, never mind that, lets try the 10 year test - If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 10 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? - i think not --Xorkl000 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More light is needed. The position and the person in the position are certainly notable. WVhybrid 04:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Israel in the United States

Non-notable book. Publisher seems to be a vanity press - note that they don't have their own ___domain name but are a subpage of a print on demand company. [117] The book is in only 3 of 10,000+ libraries in worldcat [118] The only sources I see that have written about this book are blogs, indymedia, conspiracy theory and the usual David Duke/jewwatch.org/vanguardnewsnetwork crap GabrielF 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, non-notable vanity press conspiracy book. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The book in question is already detailed in the main James Petrus page. Its serves no purpose. Time for de-dupe. scope_creep 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- James Petras' page does not explain on this book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ScottM 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in first time)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not a Barnes and Nobles, we do not need articles on every book ever made. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, totally non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Also we already have an article on Israel lobby in the United States and this seems to be just another book on the same theory. I don't think we need an article on every book ever published. 6SJ7 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not about a book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not? what's it about, then?
Delete per nom, and assign the creator of the article some public service (under control of the Lobby, of course) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article may be recreated if and when the book meets Wikipedian standards. gidonb 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I was really looking forward to reading an article about this subject and am very annoyed it turns out to be an advert for a book. --Mike 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't aplace to get cheap exposure. Robovski 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, 88,200 google hits, reviewed by Amazon, in bookmaster, etc. (see the google search result). You may not find it ind WOrldCat yet because it is new --Nielswik_(talk) 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A customer review at Amazon.com does not indicate notability in any way, shape or form, Bookmaster is the publisher that prints the books - see WP:COI, this also doesn't speak to notability. Clearly this article fails any reasonable notability guideline. GabrielF 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvertisement. Tbeatty 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every single book out there is notable. Khoi khoi 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Isarig 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can always recreate it later if it gains notability.--Rosicrucian 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Amoruso 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep unless we're going to completely hand Wikipedia over to the Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote is by a user banned from WP for disruption, personal atatcks and antisemitism. Isarig 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone adds significantly more information such as a summary and criticisms and/or praise from notable sources (preferably print sources and by experts in the field). --GHcool 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to, but some people censored it (see the article's history) --Nielswik_(talk) 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last version did not contain any useful information, but was loaded with POV and of questionable grammar. Removing that is not censorship...--Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem notable, and the current article is useless. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ZOG strikes again .. he he he. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book, Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge book does not seem to require its own page, merge with James Petras. --Deodar 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable Book by Notable Author. Comparable to State of Denial by Bob Woodward. The bad grammar by Malay (?) editor could of have been easily copy-edited. His original contribution is what counts. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Newer Edit. O.K. Now the article has a little depth. Please contribute and copy edit rather than delete. Collobarate in lieu of revert. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is a book by a barely-notable author that has gotten no press attention and no notable reviews comparable with the latest bestseller from Bob Woodward? GabrielF 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse quality of argument with quantity. Or Numerosity with novelity. The notability comes from the book's unique divergence from conventional wisdom. The notability is shown by the interest it has attracted in this "delete" forum. Of course, it will get deleted. But decency and an accommodation to fellow editors would call for a redirect. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect. But I don't buy your point that something is notable because of its "unique divergence from conventional wisdom". By that criterion, the crankier a thesis is, the more notable it becomes...--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Will has expanded the article, i guess this article shouldn't be deleted. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, why not? Just because a Wikipedia editor describes the contents of a book, it doesn't make it any more notable. Have you read the nomination reasoning? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't like it either, but it's got a Sales Rank of 18,361. Pretty good. - crz crztalk 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind that, only Howard and Southern Ill libraries have it... I guess a buncha kooks bought it an Amazon. NN publisher does not inspire confidence either. - crz crztalk 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted merge but the lack of libraries stocking the book may have to do with it being released less than 2 months ago (mid-September 2006) more than anything else. Your test would have more validity if you conducted it 5 years or more after the release of the book -- if still no libraries had it, then it clearly fell with a thud. It's sales rank this evening was 6,49 BTW. --Deodar 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the worldcat test may be okay in this case. I'm guessing that most library sales happen pretty soon after a book is released. Note that State of Denial was released four days after this book and its in almost 1000 libraries in worldcat. [119] 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few different classes of books. Those from established notable authors are bought right away -- Woodward would fit in this category -- the another set are bought based on patron request -- which takes a while longer. I recently was surprised that my library had 6 books by Uri Davis written over the period of 1978-2003 even though they were relatively fringe, especially the earlier ones. --Deodar 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Petras. Nothing left to merge, really, and redirects are cheap. I doesn't seem to merit an article in its own right, but woudl be useful to redirect to the author to catch folks googling for the book. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Morton Devonshire^Yo 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brimba 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beit Or 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a lost cause, but Redirect to James Petras. As Youngamerican said above, redirects are cheap. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable group, WP:BIO and {{db-group}} refer. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis FC

Apparently non-notable. Non-verifiable. Julius Sahara 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its a genuine football club, but totally non notable. It would have been kept if they'd won the FA cup, for instance. scope_creep 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (They can't play for the FA Cup because they're an American team...) They appear to be about at the level of a Sunday league team in England. Entirely non-notable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from the names they also look like a mixed mens and womens team. Definitely Non-notable. - fchd 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete If anyone actually wants to do the merge and needs the content, I will make it available. W.marsh 00:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meme that 911 hijackers entered through Canada

Is every last assertion/assumption/myth/urban legend/conspiracy theory/(sigh) "meme" about September 11th worthy of its own page? Wikipedia may not be paper, but this article also happens to be woefully unencyclopedic. What's next? "Meme that that kid who played Eddie Haskell grew up to be a porn star"? Raggaga 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggaga (talk • contribs)
Delete as nominator.... Although I believe this would be the second "vote" as nom voted delete per themselves. -newkai t-c 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: "as nominator" is different from "per nominator". You can't !vote "as nominator" since you aren't the nom. Xtifr _tälk 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if an appropriate article for this info can be found, otherwise Delete per nom. Some of the refs and cites look interesting and worth preserving somewhere, but I don't think the mere notion deserves its own article. Xtifr _tälk 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Xtifr: one conspiracy theory on 9/11 (or 7/7) would not necessarily merit its own page: a sourced and verified theory ought to get at least a stub-length mention on an overall page. [Incidentally, and with no disrespect to those who lost loved ones, has anyone considered how tricky the phraseology could have been, if the one attack had been 2 months earlier, or the other 4 days later?] -- Simon Cursitor

Delete or merge with one of the articles about 9/11 - maybe 9/11 conspiracy theories. 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into an appropriate 9/11 article. Doesn't begin to be worth an article unto itself. --Richard 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBK Investments

HBK Investments manages private investment funds that can only be offered to qualified investors under very limited circumstances. Under the U.S. securities laws, HBK Investments is prohibited from holding itself out to the public as an investment manager, and it is illegal for interests in its funds to be offered through any form of general solicitation. Accordingly, this posting may violate the U.S. securities laws, which could have serious consequences for HBK and for Wikipedia. Rjh827 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a rather silly nomination. One, the company isn't offering funds through this article. This article is just a normal company article like any other. Two, even if it did, the violator of the law would be whoever made the posting, and not Wikipedia; we aren't an arm of the SEC and we are not obliged to trip over ourselves making sure none of our editors violates any of the the securities laws in all countries. (Of course we'd take it down if it violated Wikipedia policies.) If there were a legal problem with this article, the correct stance for Wikipedia to take would be to take down the article once the SEC (or anyone else) were to obtain a court order forcing it to do so. Tempshill 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A wikipedia article is not an offer to sell securities. By the implied standards of the nomination, no privately held company could have an article on wikipedia. Uucp 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One what grounds are you asking for a speedy keep? "Speedy" criteria are limited. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The proposal to delete has nothing to do with the article. He wants it deleted because it is illegal to offer securities without registration, though the article never offers securities. That's like proposing deletion because the article contains nothing but a Goatse photograph, when the article doesn't contain a Goatse photo. There is nothing here to discuss. Uucp 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Tempshill says, its a company description article, like many others. scope_creep 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Robovski 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be "Kept", I urgently suggest that someone enter details as set out by User:Rjh827 on the article's main space, so that the full facts are on the record. -- Simon Cursitor

What are you talking about? Rjh827 offers no facts about HBK at all, only the general observations that unregistered securities can not be offered to the public, a total irrelevancy, as the article has nothing to do with the offering of securities. Uucp 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. Notability not established within article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely expand. The nominator's rationale is absurd since security offers can only be made by prospectus. WP does not hold itself out as a repository for prospectuses. However, this particular hedge fund is really notable only for its involvement in an SEC investigation. So that should probably be in the article. Montco 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I disagree with your thoughts about why the firm is notable -- HBK is secretive, as a lot of hedge funds are, so it makes headlines only when investigated by the government. In the financial world, however, it is notable for its size. There aren't a whole lot of $10+ billion hedge funds around, and the ones that exist have a lot of influence. Uucp 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to have gotten alot of press (as controversial or otherwise) from financial publications like The Street. --Oakshade 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Olick

Non-notable bio. There are several hundred thousand non-notable senior programmers. Tempshill 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its a puff piece. Fails all of WP:BIO scope_creep 19:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily, absolutely non-notable per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jansanskrity and related articles

Fails WP:ORG. Related, non-notable articles: Jansanskrity [120], A.N.Damodaran [121], Jansanskriti,mayurvihar phase3, Jsmv3, Sargotsavam [122]. Google returns very few unrelated results (0 for Jansanskrity). Delete. utcursch | talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

keep but merge stubs into Jansanskrity. base notability of the main is established and the program is growing, there is no need to alienate them now by deleting them. i'd put this delete under 'systematic bias', which is present in using google for non-english searches. that said, citations are needed.--Buridan 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is no systematic bias and there is no attempt to "alienate" the articles -- I am from India. Can you please explain how the "base notability of the main is established"? There are no citations, no sources -- the burden on evidence lies on the contributors, not the AFD nominators. There are many such organizations -- Jansanskrity fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to make sure "growing programs" grow more. utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is more of a keep all as they are made than a delete one because the rest are not made in my mind. i think it passes wp:org given its press coverage. --Buridan 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage? Where? What? utcursch | talk 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ~~Keep and merge stubs per Buridan~~ A google search for "Jansanskriti" is a bit better, but in an open-minded way I'm not persuaded of notability against WP:ORG. Does it measure up in the context of Category:Arts organizations? (And spotting one odd one already there, I've just nominated Durham Association for Downtown Arts as well). --Mereda 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC) The AFD I started on that local and low-profile US arts organization as a kind of controlled experiment is heading towards "Keep". So, for consistency, I'll change my vote here. --Mereda 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I'm changing back to my original view - just for consistency! - since we've now merged and redirected that US organization into a "Culture" section for its parent city.--Mereda 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for Jansanskriti gets 30 results, some of which are about a journal called "Hindutva Jansanskriti" and about another organization called "Jansanskriti Manch". utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva cannot have a 'Jansanskrity'. Because Jansanskrity means 'People's Culture' and Hindutva does not believe in either people as a starting point for any sociological discourse or in the existence of any such thing as people's culture. So thats not a valid reason for the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.229.4 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, this is not the reason the article has been nominated for deletion. Secondly, "Hindutva Jansanskriti" exists[123]. utcursch | talk 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Main article fails WP:ORG and is unverifiable. Others are also clearly not notable enough to get coverage. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

searching jansanskriti(an alternative spelling of jansanskrity?)brings a few evidences to prove the existence of an organisation by that name[124]The Hindu Hindustan times Deepika [125][126]Mathewjoe 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)mathewjoe[reply]

I'm not saying that the organization doesn't exist. It does, and probably has done some good work too. But it doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. By the way, four of the links provided by you result in "page not found"s:

[127]: Not Found
The Hindu: Not Found
Hindustan times: The page cannot be found
Deepika: Active Server Pages error 'ASP 0131'

utcursch | talk 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. Very little sources, none are mentioned in the article. I find the "keep" comments unconvincing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 404s can often be solved by checking the Wayback Machine. Unfortunately, I got nothing for the first link, which greatly lowered my interest in continuing to investigate. I'm somewhat torn, so I choose to abstain. Xtifr _tälk 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those links work, there is no sign of notability. The links provided do not establish notability. [128] is about a play, and mentions that the play was staged at the National School of Drama as part of a theatre festival by this organization. utcursch | talk 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Utcursch. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Ixfd64 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the huddle

A local radio show with (probably) little importance outside of the Plano area. Peter O. (Talk) 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, and it looks like an advert. Tempshill 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its an ad. scope_creep 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertising for a local radio show. Robovski 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Pinyan

Wacky means of death, but thoroughly non-notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's quite notable. His death was well-publicized, even outside of Washington state, and later lead to the passing of bestiality statues in Washington. hateless 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so many people know this guy - even if they don't know his name they know how he died. Further, his death resulted in the most read article in the Seattle Times ever and was reason for a change of the law. BabyNuke 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its reached the UK as well. scope_creep 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without the wikipedia entry people might end up finding and looking at the video. I'd rather have people look at the wikipedia entry than do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevershark (talk • contribs)
Keep per BabyNuke. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a widely covered event who's investigation spanned several months, not only that, but this individual was well-known in the ahem...'circles' he spent time with. His is a 'known name.' It ought to be kept. The.soror 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable death, as above. Robovski 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable incident. Everyking 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. I think Kenneth Pinyan is an increasingly known person. For example, the incident has spread to be quite known in Norway as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jjylf (talk • contribs) 10 November 2006
Keep. This is certainly a notable death. --Zantolak 09:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Non-notable what? He's one big, throbbing internet phenomenon. Nominator should be ashamed to have put this article for deleton with such ridiculos excuses. He's the man against the mighty forces of nature. Unfortunately he failed to manage them, but he's still my personal hero and he's still admired by many for his strength and courage. -- Femmina 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. How can an incident which caused new laws to be passed possibly be considered non-notable? Just because it involves the internet and beastiality doesn't make it non-notable. Chris Buckey 16:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List of Silver Anniversary Awards (NCAA) Recipients – Gurch 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Silver Anniversary Awards (NCAA) Receipients

This page is empty and nothing links to or from it. It was originally created with a mis-spelled word and all contents were moved to List of Silver Anniversary Awards (NCAA) Receipients. Delete. Tlmclain | Talk

Speedy delete as empty and so tagged. Whisp e ring 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies For Freedom

Kept in June, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom, for reasons not unconnected with the nominator's admitted dislike of the person who runs this group. My major problem here is that I find very little hard evidence of either significance or independent coverage. A Google search which excludes Wikipedia, forums and blogspot returns 145 unique hits, and Google News finds no hits. There is some attempt at halo-effect from protests by people who were then members, and letters of support, but honestly that does not amount to reliable sources regarding the organisation. At best it might deserve a paragraph in an article on the anti-cure movement. My biggest concern here is that I am unable to verify, from the sources, either the claimed significance of the group, or the neutrality of the article. Any gaming group that scored this low on the Google-O-Meter would be nuked from space without a moment's compunction, but this is not a gaming group. It is, however, a minority activist group which is skilled at self-promotion. Guy 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom scope_creep 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFF has been covered in the mainstream media many times and we are one of the few active autism rights organisations around - the movement is small but most certainly notable, as are the main groups User:GarethNelson
Keep. It's more than a community, it's a community seeking - and getting - media attention. The getting media attention makes it notable. There is More to Life than Google. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed AFF is getting media attention, I second User:GarethNelson's reason for keeping this article, also I believe that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the media attention that AFF gets. Pika Pikachu2005 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does any fancruft get deleted when the fans vote to Keep? CalG 01:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For this article to be kept, it is in serious need of independent coverage per nom. Clearly several editors involved with the topic strongly believe there is such coverage. Problem is the article does not reflect that at all: Many links in the article (that aren't from the group's own page) simply go to content promoting the same positions on issues. If you dig around on a couple of the linked pages you can find links to the organization's main page, but not much if any discussion of them near their home page (have not looked exhaustively). The Times (UK) link has a fleeting reference to the group and their work (although it could be read to say they would be covering the group more in the future; if they did, that coverage would be handy); the Times (NY) link talks about issues the group are interested in but does not mention them. So much for notable sources. (One other link was subscription only). If somebody got on the ball, I suspect this article could be brought up to clear keep status quite easily. But right now it's a clear delete. Baccyak4H 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFF is a pillar in the Aspie community. David McNamara 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not document the extreme inflexibility of AFF leaders towards ideas which conflict with theirs. An attitude which has brought them into conflict with other pillars of the autistic spectrum community, and which has caused them to misrepresent or plain old banish less visible members. User:CrazyEddy Wed Nov 15 06:31:49 EST 2006

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

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

The result was Close - AfD is not required for either Evertype's proposed solution or Tobias Conradi's current split. AfD is not for resolving content disputes, and if an admin advised you to bring it here then they misinformed you. If a solution can not be worked out take the matter to WP:RFC. Yomangani ^talk 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'Ko alphabet

A short article named N'Ko was needlessly split into N'Ko script and N'Ko language. I disputed this, and attempted to revert to a single article. An edit war ensued, unfortunately, resulting also in the moving of N'Ko script to N'Ko alphabet by the splitter. I proposed on the Talk:N'Ko page that the article should only be split if there were consensus from other editors that it be split. The splitter has ignored this, and it's been getting unpleasant. There is no reason that the single N'Ko article can't deal effectively with both script and language issues (at least until it gets much longer than it is) and therefore I request that N'Ko alphabet be deleted (or made into a redirect) and what unique content it contains be merged into N'Ko -- Evertype·✆ 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominator. -- Evertype·✆ 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nomination. Both articles cover simiar ground and material. A duplication of detail. scope_creep 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They only cover similiar stuff because the alphabet stuff was already merged into N'Ko. In WP we have articles for languages and articles for writing systems. This one is a writing system article belonging to WikiProject Writing systems -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should be sorted out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this could be resolved by the user who split the articles to produce a better article in line with the style set out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. - Francis Tyers · 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- the user who split the article cannot work on the language article, since that is protected. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Work on it in a subpage, or a subpage of your userpage. - Francis Tyers · 20:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need to work on a 'subpage' and certainly not in my userspace. I like the colaborative nature of wikipedia. If you want to work privatly, maybe you are in the wrong project? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am quite prepared to do the work of merging and would like to help to improve the article. I have worked extensively with N'Ko, as is well-known. -- Evertype·✆ 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. N'Ko alphabet is used for several languages, not only N'Ko language Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tobias Conradi is the splitter mentioned in the nomination. The N'Ko script can be used to transcribe other languages. I have a document in French and N'Ko in N'Ko script. This does not mean that French (or any other language) is conventionally written in N'Ko script. The N'Ko language is a literary language which is only written in N'Ko. There is -- honestly -- no need to have the language described on a page of its own. We only need one article, N'Ko. -- Evertype·✆ 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Can you cite soures for the claim that "The N'Ko language is a literary language which is only written in N'Ko.". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Yes, of course I can. When the articles are merged, I will work on improving the article. By the way what you inserted in the info box about Manding languages is not quite correct. -- Evertype·✆ 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - compare Category:Manding languages to see that language articles are named "X language" - except N'Ko. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment It is clear to me that you do not understand the nature of the literary language which is N'Ko. Clearly you simply want to "win" here. I do not. I want an encyclopaedia that works. We need only one article, N'Ko. We had that until YOU decided to change this unilaterally without discussion. You were wrong, and have given no reasonable justification for your action. N'Ko alphabet needs to be merged with N'Ko so we can improve the article. -- Evertype·✆ 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You are very often talking in plural. Who is we? And maybe stop your false claims. Instead work on the articles and add content. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the AfD process is not meant to deal with content disputes over splitting up or merging articles. Please take this to RfC or anything usefull. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Mr Conradi were a reasonable editor, that might be possible. It is not. There was one article, N'Ko, which he has split. In point of fact, he is now continuing to edit N'Ko alphabet and N'Ko language while we have this dispute. This seems to me to be bad faith. All that is happening is a whole lot of confusion is being added to the Wikipedia. I was advised by one Administrator to propse a VfD to merge the articles all back into N'Ko. Please be specific about how we can resolve this. All I see is Mr Conradi acting as though he can do whatever he likes. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - False claims again and again. Evertype can't you stop it? Can't you add content to the language article like I do add content? I am editing the language article because the N'Ko articles is protected. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You split the article. I dispute that the article should be split. I have now also given the following at Talk:N'Ko: It is not acceptable to me to have the two articles split. Mr Conradi endeavours to force a taxonomy for all language and script articles on the Wikipedia. But he does NOT know anything about N'Ko. The literary dialect which now has the ISO 639 script code "nqo" is only ever written in N'Ko script. Indeed, because of the nature of the N'Ko script and the way it informs the literary dialect, it is impossible to see how the literary dialect could be written in the Latin or Arabic scripts, because it is intimately tied to the writing conventions of the N'Ko script. I have tried to explain this elsewhere, but instead of discussing with other editors and agreeing in consensus, Mr Conradi has ploughed on ahead, splitting and adding more material to the split articles, oblivious to the fact that he is doing is counter to the facts of the sociolinguistic situation for N'Ko. It makes no sense at all to have N'Ko alphabet separate from N'Ko language, and that split in fact makes it more difficult to write an article which correctly and usefully addresses the facts. A single article, N'Ko, is all that is needed here. I (who have worked with the N'Ko user community for several years) cannot edit Mr Conradi's split articles. I cannot improve them. They make no sense while split. The split is only wanted by Mr Conradi. Not by anyone else. He split the articles without consultation or consensus. There is sustained opposition to the split; he has not convinced me with his "justification" that "all language and script articles should be split". It makes sense for many of them to be split. It makes no sense for N'Ko to be split. N'Ko is a special case. We (the Wikipedia community interested in Writing Systems) should not want Mr Conradi to "get the numbers to 100%". He wishes to do this for its own sake, not because it makes sense to treat N'Ko this way. I ask you, Mr Conradi, can you possibly agree that in this case your desire for tidiness is incorrect and unhelpful, and that you should listen to someone with expertise in the script in question, and agree to allow us to revert to a single article N'Ko which can then be improved and expanded usefully? I ask this courteously, despite the fact that your willfulness and your apparent pleasure in doing whatever you please with the Wikipedia is extremely exasperating. Ikiroid, that is the best I can do. -- Evertype·✆ 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to merge new content at N'Ko language and N'Ko alphabet to the article N'Ko, to redirect those to N'Ko, and to have N'Ko (disambiguation) deleted. If this is agreeable, we can close this AfD. -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as {{db-empty}}. (aeropagitica) 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell of Atri

Contested prod page provides no context or any reason why this story is notable Whisp e ring 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no assertion of notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Crappy badly written article, no sources scope_creep 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision

The article was originally prodded a few weeks ago and I was the deleting admin. A few days ago, a user Dontaskme asked why it was deleted. After reviewing it, I had my doubts to the initial prod, so I restored the article and decided to send it to AfD. The original prod stated "Notability, website seems to indicate small size". The article has been in existance for more than a year, and I would like to see a community consensus on this AfD. Nishkid 64 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable genuine society. Article needs to be tidied, expanded, and categorised. scope_creep 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Genuine yes. Notable? It has 406 members. So do most Everquest guilds. Undecided, but what is the basis for notability?Obina 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's a medical organization that is notable because of what it does, not because of the size of its membership. I doubt any Everquest guilds do something as vital to human sight as setting the standards for ophthalmalogical (or however that's spelled) equipment. My vote is Keep - clearly important medical organization. --Charlene 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep. ISCEV sets standards for various forms of ERG, EOG, and VEP. -AED 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it may be obscure but it is worthy of an entry. I would however like it to be tidied up a bit. I was disappointed there was no definition or link for "electrophysiological" --Mike 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Robovski 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No surprise that I vote for keeping since I am the one who asked Nishkid64 to restore the article. Most reasons have already been mentioned. I believe size is not a good criterion for notability (quite a few small town would loose their article in Wikipedia if 500 members/citizens was the lower limit). I think the society does work that is very relevant and thus notable. Their journal actually ranks relatively high in the ophthalmology section of the Science Citation Index. The article is clearly not perfect (yet), but worth being kept. --Dontaskme 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. All participants agree that there seem to be no references beyond "mentions". If better sources can be retrieved the article can be userfied for a better sourced revision. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogme ELT

This article was created by a person involved with the organization as described here. Therefore, the article is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I pre-empted this! I have pointed out to Scott on his talkpage that it was a breach of Wikipedia etiquette to create this page. Having said that, the dogme movement is small but significant, and I am glad the page exists. So I oppose any moves to delete it. BrainyBabe

You have admitted that it is a minor movement. It is therefore not notable and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. See this policy: Wikipedia:Notability. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it isn't obvious, I vote to delete this article, as it is a breach of the above policies and borders on advertisement. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable movement, with plenty of coverage in the media and teaching scope_creep 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards the notability policy. It says that notable means being written about, not being well-known. Dogme is written about, though as I am not willing/able to do the legwork to prove this, I suppose my assertion can't count. You assert that minor means non-notable but I disagree; many movements in art, politics, etc. may be minor but much written about (ie notable) and influential. How long does the process of deletion take? BrainyBabe 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the article was written by a member of the organization, and is violation of those policies as well. Given those problems, it is irrelevant whether it is notable or not. You reference movements in other disciplines but notability in those areas is determined by history, and this organization is not old enough to be even viewed through history. Deletion can take a while. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless references added I don't care who wrote the thing, but unless it has references to external web sites or articles then I can't see how it is notable. If it has "plenty of coverage in the media and teaching" then where are the references? --Mike 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added two more references ScottThornbury 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These references are both written by and added to the page by the author. They are in violation of the same policies noted above (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the offending references, and susbtituted two references to key works in the field, both of which mention "Dogme ELT" ScottThornbury 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they "mention" Dogme does not mean they are references. I have changed the heading to "See also". This page is now unreferenced. – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The two references were chosen because they represent leading authorities in the field, and therefore their "mentions" of Dogme tend to validate its importance in the field, but I am happy with the "See also" formulation. ScottThornbury 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This begs the question: What or who are the references for the material you added to this encyclopedia about this topic? Is it just you? – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the original reference into the body of the text, in compliance with the dictum (under NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH) that "This policy [i.e. NOR] does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person..." ScottThornbury 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate article. It is soundly written, albeit slightly slanted toward the topic. Its only problem is that it does not have precise references aside from the general reference at the base of the article. I vote for non-deletion, i.e., preservation. Dogru144 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't be "soundly written" if it is "slanted". That's an oxymoron. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need it to be shown that the subject has been covered, not just mentioned, by reliable sources. A Google search turned up an article which does actually fully cover the subject in The Grauniad, but it's written by members of the group and isn't a third-party source, despite the publisher. Factiva gave me three hits, but they're all passing mentions. There is nothing on which we can base an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space 1999 Festival

Prodded as a non-notable event, but the talk page indicates it has survived a previous AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be kept as its part of a wider cultural movement, which has been gaining momentum for a number of years scope_creep 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable event. Valrith 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say Delete, but user:Scope Creep notes some cultural movement. If there's an article on this cultural movement, it should be merged into that. --Dennisthe2 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it was about the TV show until I read the article. Get some references and I think I can say keep. Robovski 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Pavilion Tavern

Non-notable entity, orphan article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. This is what comes of letting non-notable schools and streets into Wikipedia: you get non-notable pubs and bars because they're "important in the local community". And before we know it we'll have non-notable shops and nightclubs and goodness-knows-what. Delete-delete-delete-itty-lete. WMMartin 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any notability scope_creep 19:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only real reason to keep given here is to merge, and this is an article with virtually zero prose, so it's difficult to imagine that a section on (the few) notable RPG Maker games couldn't be written in the relevant article without this content. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable RPG Maker games

List of what seems to be very popular games made by the RPG Maker community. However, only one game on this list has any notability sourced (and even then it's pretty questionable); the rest of the list is just a listing of games, which all seem to fail the notability guidelines in WP:SOFTWARE. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with one of the RPG Maker pages. --- RockMFR 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. A week and a bit ago I asked on the talk page for references of notability and nothing's happened since then. There are so many RPG-maker made games out there, very few of actual note, there's no point in having this list. Some of the games may very good, but without any third-party verification of quality, this is just a list for promoting them. Marasmusine 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The games with references should definitely be merged. --- RockMFR 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - One thing I've not been able to fathom is the Alex d'Or award; as the originating webpage is in French, I can't tell if it is notable or not. Marasmusine 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of WP:V = failure to exist. Merge the one or two that are verified to be notable, if you (this is the general "you") desire. -- Kicking222 23:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Delete Merge anything provable with the relevant page, delete the rest. Robovski 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it interesting and useful. Battle Ape 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Yes, but that's not a valid argument. The entire list is still a bunch of unverifiable, unsourced, non-notable games. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Meadows

Not notable model-actress whose "most high profile appearance was in the opening scene of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode F.P.S.". Not sure that getting shot in N.Y. City qualifies as notable.

200 unique/9,500 total Google hits
No mention of any awards at IMDB
Nothing at Google news unless she is the Volleyball star.
News accounts listed in article are all about her getting shot. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO scope_creep 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not really assert her notability, most just report that she was shot. Could've been any other person. Also, WP:COI.--Hús ö nd 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major Delete Squad These are their stories (dun dun). Danny Lilithborne 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her acting career was a bit part. Did someone mention shooting in New Your City? Even murder victims are not necessarily notable. There is weak assertion of notability in the article, so probably can't be speedied. Ohconfucius 09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Gurch. (aeropagitica) 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don J.

Vanity page. Unsigned artist for some reason has links to recording companies pages, and this is essentially an overlong bio without asserting importance of subject. Gekedo 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its a puff piece, extreme delete is called for scope_creep 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was between refactoring and sockpuppetry/copyvio accusations (which I cannot confirm) I can find no consensus to delete. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Khan

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Speedy Dlete/Copvio The article be speedy deleted, as there are thousands of Nazims in Pakistan. The article seems to be a copy from a web-site too, that is from a forum and the main link given in that froum article is giving an error.

Speedy Delete as per nomination scope_creep 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is by all means a bad faith nomination. A Google result [129] provides countless interesting stories about this person who won a Jack Pot of 32 Million Dollars in a US lottery. A Nazim of a District in Pakistan is like a Mayor in USA. The person having unique history (which provides him an international fame) certainly qualifies as per WP:BIO. The article must remain for the sake of him winning the largest amount of Lottery in US history. I have also added some links to his article and which should suffice. --Marwatt 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~Comment: Nazim is to different from Mayor. In Pakistan we previously use to have Mayors but that system was replaced as that was British System. The country rapidly started changing the British system. This was one of few steps. Beside this, also let me add, that Nazim system was brought after Commissionerate system was lifted from Pakistan, that use to show the pre-independence time. So government of Pakistan changed it. By the way there are atleast Twenty Five 25 Nazims in each district of Pakistan, there are nearby 200 districts in Pakistan. There are thousand of people who wins the lottery everyday at every place of the world. If we started entering the Nazims of Pakistan and lottery people, then I think Wikipedians will have nothing to do except of hiring people to upload data for whole of them.A M. Khan 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lets talk about the merits of this article. Isn't Ihsan Khan a District Nazim which means that he is the boss of all the other town Nazims. Yes he is. Furthermore, how many people have won US Lottery worth 32 Million Dollars, none and especially a poor cab driver from Pakistan. Certainly passes the Google test. It’s a Cinderella story and strongly deserves a place in Wikipedia. You are once again pushing a POV on personal enmity. And by the way please insert your vote only once and avoid adding more votes down the page.--Marwatt 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's verifiable with sources and the subject has successfully entered elected politics. Being mayor of a town isn't normally notable just by itself, but this guy has already had international media coverage (and I guess a lot more in non-English media) so he meets WP:BIO even if he stops now. Mereda 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with mereda, it is verifiable and a district nazim is considerably more influential than a a simple mayor.--Zak 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know a person who is not a notable to anyone in his street, but his name comes in google, whenever you search, as he use to work on net and also in a private organization. I also know a bureaucrat who is too famous in bureaucracy of Pakistan and atleast 2-3 pages of goole comes for him, so it means should we make an article for such people too? Nazim has nothing to do with any bureaucrat, he is even under the DCO {District Chief Officer), the name itself shows that all powers are with DCO not with Nazims. I don't want to go further, except making a comment that you for your un-healthy claim brought up many sock-puppets here. Aiditior, Zakksez a.k.a Zak are your sock puppets. I hope the administration will be taking action against you soon and blocking of you will be made alongwith this article soon. A M. Khan 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing Editor/Administrator should discount the votes of all sock puppets such as User:Begu Khel, User:Mina Khel, and User:Krishan Raj. --Marwatt 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Seems to be notable. But is there any Pakistani wikipedians to comment on this Afd...? If so we have to consider there words with more weightage. Asian Language Newspaper reports are not available in Google search. So we cannot blindly believe and rely on google hits when the AfD biography of an Asian is taken into consideration. News reports from Urdu or Hindi newspapers of 5 lakh copies are not available in google. But report from English Newspapers with mere 1000 copies are also available in google.Ha...Ha...Ha... Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a Pakistani Wikipedian and I know the person from his philanthropy from the local press as well. He is an elected official and almost everyone in the Pashtun belt knows about his dream winning of a US lottery of 32 million. He has a status of a celebrity as far as I know. --Marwatt 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Comments. I am also a Pakistani Wikipedian, I never knew the person before reading this article. He is infamous person. I asked many people in his area, who were my college mates and some work with me in Mobilink Peshawar. All of them replied that yes they just know him for Nizamat (Holding status of Nazim) not for his lottery. One of them confirmed yes he is won alottery in US, others replied that they don't knbow about a lottery but came to know that he is having a property in US also some fule-stations and minor things. He was a sheep-man (who is servant of elders of Villages to make sheeps roaming daily inmountains) before he went to US. Now he won due to using money, his case is still pending in election commission tribunal. Even he is freed of charges, Nazim is nothing, nothing special as mentioned by my fellows earlier. An appropriate action for deletion of this artilce musttake place now. The article is nothing more then a debatless for some voters who are just voting withut any specefic reason other then being involved in personalising. Begu Khel 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If we start adding Nazim on Wikipedia, we will for sure be adding thousands of pages daily. According Local Government Ordinance of Pakistan a Nazim is having powers of Grade (BPS-20) officer. Nazim have no right to interfare in divisional or provincial political affairs even. There is a restriction of Matriculation for Nazim, while for Pakistan Civil Services one need to be passing the competetive Central Superior Services! examination. For Members of Pronvial Assemblies, Naional Assemblies and Senate, in Pakistan, one need to contest an election and candidates for such elections need to be holder of Bchelors Degree. This shows the real difference that how less is Nazim delaing with. They (Nazims) are just restricted to use some powers, previously those were with prestigious Assistant or Deputy Commissioners. Recently, in one of the debate here on Wikipedia, concluded that Grade-20 officer is not at all a prominent.Eventhoug, there are such officers in 20-Scale, that they are looking there department as Incharge of it for whole Pakistan. Inshort, I will surely, ask for Speedy Deletion of this article. It also seems to be copy from a baseless-link. Begu Khel 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) What if it is my 9th edit? Are you all OK? You must know that I am eligible to vote, my case is different if compared with others. Begu Khel 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes by users with very few edits

Comment. There is absolutely no relevance whatsoever between what you User:Begu Khel are saying and what the contents of this article are. Wouldn't you agree that he (1) passes the Google test by a huge margin (2) has a fairy tale life (3) has an international fame, and lastly (4) is after all an elected Nazim of a District. Please dont confuse both a government servant and an elected figure. --Marwatt 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nomination and as per voted by majority. Krishan Raj 08:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Probable sockpuppet: This user account started on Nov 12 with a first edit to another user's talk page. --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Also note that this is user's 2nd edit. utcursch | talk 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Keep. Absolutely fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO. 100% bad faith nomination. --Mina Khel 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Another sockpuppet: This SPA started on Nov 12. --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Also note that this is user's 3rd edit. utcursch | talk 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I dont understand as to why this article was nominated in the first place. The person has a status of celebrity. I totally agree with mereda and zak. The article deserves to be in wikipedia. --Aiditor 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Comment: I have to say this looks like a sockpuppet too as a user account that's rarely in use. Sorry if I've got that wrong! --Mereda 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Verified. Just check the User: Aiditor's user-page. Then see the history, in one date you will notice so many changes and the starter of that page is no-one else then User:Marwatt. The administration must take action against his sock-puppetry deed. Thanks USer:MeredaA M. Khan 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not verified -- verification can be done only through a proper Request for Checkuser. I'd like to point out that this is user's 37th edit. utcursch | talk 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy and Strong Dlete~~ The article should be delete now. There are majority of fake votes casted for the favour of """Keep""". I think it's too much to know about a conspiracy which is to make this article keep. Eventhough, I think theer is no strong debate made nor defended in favour of this article. The debate that is in favour of deletion is a very tough. Requesting here to delete the article on true norms. Begu Khel 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second comment; see above. Postdlf 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan donkey

Blurb about not-notable headlines in some newspapers. No sources provided. It would be the same as to create an article on K Fed-up refering to Britney and Kevin divorce, the headline was used in yesterday's newspaper... Renata 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a genuine term. scope_creep 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "genuineness" is not the issue. Notability, WP:NEO and WP:WINAD are (some of the) issue(s). Xtifr _tälk 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Appleseed (Talk) 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. --Lysy^talk 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Note, e.g., this link [130] where a polish station complains about the use of the term to President Bush. Apparently, it did generate some press and cause some concern. --Hyperbole 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic as no evidence of widespread, substantive use; appears to be ephemeral buzzphrase/newspaper headline. News coverage/passing concern does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every term/phrase/newspaper headline out there - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, glossary, news report archive, slang guide, buzzword clearing house etc etc Bwithh 00:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Bwithh expressed it perfectly. Xtifr _tälk 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content; expand if possible, otherwise consider merging appropriately. Everyking 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bwithh --khello 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge So if the media started calling Britney Spears "Titney", that would be worth an article? Merge only if it can be sourced, and I don't even know where. ~ trialsanderrors 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g4, reposted, nothing new. NawlinWiki 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McGhie

Vanity piece. Deleted previously, notability not risen since. Gekedo 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete previously deleted, and no claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not even very slightly notable - artciel erads liek a cross between a flyer and a joke. StuartDouglas 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per CSD G7. Xoloz 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rick McGhie

Although undoubtedly notable among the university's students, I don't feel this guitarist is notable enough for an entry. Yes, has been playing for 28 years, but only live and in a small area. Google search brings up few sites, but nothing beyond that that would be given to a small group playing live gigs. Gekedo 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its another puff piece. scope_creep 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete.At what point does one reach "Wikipedia status"? Is it a quantitative "they are known by x number of people" or is it something more complex? While I understand the spirit behind the deletion of pages, I feel that given the vastness of wikipedia it cannot be compared to a simple encyclopedia. I'm sure it is a great feat to have your name written up in Brittanica, for example, but should it be as difficult to be written up in wikipedia? These are not simply rhetorical questions, as I really would like to know peoples thoughts about this. I haven't been editing for that long so I'm still trying to figure things out. Je at uwo 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je at uwo. Take a look at WP:BIO for an explantion of what is required to get listed on Wikipedia scope_creep 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick McGhie has attained a cult status at one of the largest universities in Canada. There is not one student who has walked the campus who doesn't know of his musical stylings. Rick McGhie has a a place in the heart of 25 000 students and hundreds of thousands of Alumni. I've seen things on Wikipedia that are far more meager or irrelevant than this entry. I think it should stay.24.42.118.206 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete.I would argue this, Kinu, with reference to WP:MUSIC. The seventh entry of this policy would apply here as Rick McGhie is a prominant example of a local scene of the University of Western Ontario. 129.100.180.234 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies, I forgot to sign in before posting. The above comment is from Je at uwo 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form, which makes no (or an insignificant) claim to notability. The article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC as it stands. Googling "Rick McGhie" returns 582 hits, which is pretty low. I'm led to suspect he's just another one of millions of local musicians around the world. --Hyperbole 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Vyse 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable non-league local football team, {{db-group}}/ WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Couch Potatoes

NN Welsh amatuer football club in an equally NN Swansea Sunday 5-a-side football league, also WP:NOT a club announcement board. Recreated only a few minutes after a speedy delete. Tubezone 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom and not notable in any sense. scope_creep 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, being a five-a-side football team in a non-notable club league is not in itself an assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redcard...er, delete. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why am I getting the impression that anything on here has to be of an international or national stature. I'm trying to get my local community involved as much as I can and I thought having an editable page such as Wikipedia would be good to make them feel part of the team Craig Map 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are other ways to do this without creating an encyclopedia article here. See Wiki and Wiki farm for explanations on how to create your own Wiki. Tubezone 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - fchd 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hedgecoke

This is clearly self-promotional with some pretty ridiculous claims (this artist invented an art movement of historical importance?). Freshacconci 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN and WP:COI, clearly proven by Yahoo! and Google.--Hús ö nd 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both this and the article on the movement in question. Neither's even been around long enough to establish some sort of notability. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Xplosion

PROD removed by article creator with no explanation. Non-notable indy wrestling organization. No assertion of notability either. TJ Spyke 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) scope_creep 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TJ Spyke originally placed an AFOD tag within the article that had a provision stating that if I objected to removing the tag, I could. That's what I did, but TJ Spyke continues to hassle me because I didn't state a reason for deleting the tag, despite the fact that stating a reason was not required. This wrestling promotion is linked to in several Wikipedia articles and is notable. TheNewMinistry 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't hassle you, I asked you why you removed the PROD. If this indy fed is notable, proove how. The article doesn't say how its notable (if it is), and provides no sources besides their official website. TJ Spyke 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Third-party sources have been added. TheNewMinistry 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this indy fed is notable. Edgecution 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]}

Six stroke engine

I am nominating this to protect it from speedy deletion as a repost. This Trivandrum story got deleted as an undisputed prod back in March but I am prepared to give it a proper AfD. Note that it is not original research - original research is that which is published here for the first time. The question is: is it notable or just an engineering students' project which has received a bit more publicity than usual. My "vote" is weak keep. -- RHaworth 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It could be a genuine new engine design, but the article needs tidied up/re-written almost certainly. I say keep for a few weeks, and see what transpires. scope_creep 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming the information in the article is itself true and verifiable in some way. This is no different from say Wankel Engine or any of the others. FrozenPurpleCube 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done quite a bit of cleanup on the article. We have a situation where it appears there is an American six-stroke engine and an Indian six-stroke engine that operate on different principles. I've included information about the American six-stroke engine, but information on the Indian team still dominates the article. I'm not sure whether to try to balance them according to notability, or to split them into two separate articles. If they are split into different articles, this should probably turn into a disambiguation page. --Hyperbole 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done quite a bit of cleanup on the article, and have also added a little bit of new information regarding the subject. There are two other six stroke engine designs known as Beare Head and Bajulaz Six Stroke engine. I have added informations regarding them too in this article. I feel that this article " six stroke engine " should be written such that, it describes the various six stroke engine designs. --Drakefroster 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very novel concept. Keep and clean it up. --Dennisthe2 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep? If this is what I think it is, it is something I read about some 25 years ago and if I had a million quid have always wanted to have a go at building. However, the article seems very confused. If I understand it correctly it is not literally a six stroke engine but a combination of two stroke and four stroke technology. If it is what I think it is, it has to be in Wikipedia, but the article is terribly confusing so that I'm not sure what it is about and it drastically needs a mega-warning until someone can improve it! --Mike 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some work, but it's worth keeping. Robovski 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Steamer

Note that there were five nominations previously: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th.

WP:WINAD. A definition plus usage examples constitute a lexicon entry, not an encyclopedia entry. Plus, this is a stupid, juvenile piece of shit article that needs deleted like (removed). Guglielmo Clintone 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) — Guglielmo Clintone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Speedy keep - "juvenile piece of shit" is not a guideline or policy I am currently familar with. (I totally stole the rest of this from one of the many many AFDs this article has had - but why come up with something new when someone else has came up with a very good reason to keep). The term has widespread pop culture references - mentioned in major Hollywood motion pictures and popular cartoons. Referenced in a Family Guy episode, Mr. Saturday Knight. In the DVD commentary, Seth MacFarlane admits he got the phrase through the FOX censors precisely because they didn't have a clue what it meant. --Charlesknight 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (removed) Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I agree, its notable, has solid sources, and fairly well written. scope_creep 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wictionary unless the article is expanded - it really is just a dicdef. The "use in pop culture" section doesn't give any useful non-etymological information about the term. --Hyperbole 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Heh, solid sources. Like poop. But seriously, this has survived AfD five times already and the term is important in popular culture such as Family Guy and the Daily Show. Valley2city 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even I know the term, and I'm about as far removed from the pop-culture mainstream as they come. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was just at AfD a few weeks ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (removed) Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and especially not a dictionary of American fratboy slang. --Charlene 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiktionary. I urge the closing admin to review this carefully, as this is pretty clearly something meant for Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. --Improv 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the last 5 AfDs certainly thought so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is pretty clearly messed up when such an obvious candidate for wiktionary is kept here. It's hard to argue that it's anything but a term definition. --Improv 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, AfD is way, way fucked up. If it makes fourteen year old boys titter, it's "speedy keep!" all around. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiktionary is for items that could never be expanded beyond a term definition, that is not the case with this article. --Charlesknight 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been around long enough, and been AfDed enough times, that if there was any verifiable information beyond the dicdef and the original research pop culture cruft it would be in there by now. Guy 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" is a definition and a list of usage examples. The only way this could be a clearer transwiki candidate is if it listed its part of speech, pronunciation, and etymology. If it could be usefully expanded, between its two and a half years of existence and previous appearances on AFD, surely it would have been by now. —Cryptic 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's an entry for Donkey punch, of all things. And it really can't be confined to a definition, a lá Santorum. I know the term even outside of pop culture - it's one of those in this category that it seems everybody's heard of. --Grahamdubya 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per above, bad faith nomination. bbx 08:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (removed) I nominated this and gave policy based reasons for doing so because I feel it doesn't belong and violates policy. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above: This is very obviously a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ye gods, delete! I've seen some horrifying stuff doing my newpage patrol thing, but this takes the prize. I agree with the nominator in spirit and agree with his reasoning per WP:WINAD, but disagree with the salty language. BTW, I have a lexicon of slang or two that have "definitions" that look just like this article. Definition plus examples of usage in sentence form or quotation. All it needs now is called a noun and given an IPA pronunciation transcription. I highly doubt Wiktionary would take this, as we aren't quite the dumping ground Wikipedians think they are. Also, I first heard of this in 1992 when it was college slang, not fodder for TV jokesters, and there was no mention of the "steamroller motion of the buttocks." I have a conventional ass, and mine won't move 360 deg. It sounds like an embellishment. I believe the common-sense etymology involving how feces steam in cool temperatures. Origin in 1992, to me, means neologism banned according to WP:NEO. This appears to have been a very, very bad article, a real troublemaker, a point of contention, and a source of snicker material for vandals for a very long time. I must question badlydrawnjeff's neutrality (but not his zeal) as he has consistently voted to strongly keep this without a single rational reason that I can find in six AfD's. I don't understand "valid pop culture term" as a reason to keep. This is a contentious issue, and I hope you don't mind having a newbie like me chime in, as perhaps I may offer a new perspective after researching this for a day. Mr Spunky Toffee 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you question my neutrality? Are you saying I have a bias toward shitting on someone's chest? d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I really don't know, and I'm not going to ask what your personal preferences are, whether you cruise the church socials or the singles' bars or the leather bars or the swingers' clubs. Not my business. It does, however, seem that you take an unusual interest in grotesque sex jokes popular among young men aged 15 to 25 and that this unusual interest constitutes a set of blinders you wear to avoid looking at policy. Just my two euro cents. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn reputation not matching reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it. I heard the term on [The Daily Show] and came straight to the wikipedia to find out what it meant, and here it was. The justifications for removal look like a thin sham to cover up for prudes wanting to supress potty language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispincowan (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 November 2006
Transwiki or simply delete. The article is the only thing in the world shittier than the subject. Guy 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete. This article is essentially a dictionary definition with a list of examples of its usage, which is not encyclopedic in the slightest. If people are interested in the meaning of this term, they can go to Urbandictionary or something, because this isn't the place for it. WarpstarRider 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to enter into the record an AfD of an article that seems to be comparable to this Cleveland steamer article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead prostitutes in popular culture. Boy, I had a heck of a time finding this little gem, googling for garbage. Dead prostitutes are a common joke in "popular culture." I'm sure even Family Guy had a dead hooker or two. So, why the resounding delete on an article on what is essentially a pop culture joke and list of examples, just like Cleveland steamer? Maybe an admin could undelete and compare the two. "Dead prostitutes" apparently had a sole author and no serial AfD's, and those are the only differences I can detect at this point. Oh, and the fact that it's pretty easy to figure out what a dead hooker is without reading a sentence-long definition. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, it seems to me that an article on dead hookers would be more encyclopedic than Cleveland steamer, since the dead hooker is often used as a plot device in TV and movies as something unpleasant that must be disposed of carefully and with great difficulty. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain and~~ comment. This nomination was made less than a week after the last AfD closed. There is very little chance of the outcome changing in such a short time, so this was probably premature and a bit of a time-waster. Despite the fact that I'd be happy to see it deleted (see my reasons in the last several discussions), I don't think enough time has passed for this AfD to be relevant. Note also that this is the sixth nomination: I've fixed the page and its inbound links, as well as linked to the last five at the top. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaning my !vote. Since it's here, I might as well... Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a definition and a list of attestations in the real world. There isn't a scrap of encyclopedic content in the article. Previous AfD keep votes were given because they saw potential for the article becoming encyclopedic if only someone would include some decent sources, and it has never happened after the AfD closed. Given that repeated failure, I don't think it ever will until the Real World does some academic or semi-academic treatment of the subject and creates some decent sources for us. In other words, I agree with Improv wholeheartedly. Also see The World Will Not End Tomorrow: if this is going to be encyclopedic in the future, we can wait until then to have an article, can't we. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion of this article does not really advance the interests of the encyclopedia, overall. It's a very, very marginally notable entity. Let's say it adds .0001 encyclopeditrons of value to the Wikipedia. Then on the other hand you have the chance of this being picked up and used to give a bad impression of Wikipedia, invitation to vandalism, attracting the undesirable sort of editor, really inappropriate for children (and yes I know we are not censored for minors, but I don't think this is what is meant), general ickiness, and so on. We can say that overall the article subtracts .0002 encyclopeditrons of value. Therefore it is bad for the 'pedia, and the closing admin should WP:IAR and delete it regardless. That is what WP:IAR is for. Herostratus 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That is one of the best arguments for delete I have ever seen! I completely endorse this reasoning: the existence of a class of articles whose removal increases the net worth of the project is something I have long appreciated but not found a way to put into words. I once saw the Yiddish term nebbish defined as the kind of person who when they leave the room you think someone just came in - this article is like that :-) Guy 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary The language doesn't bother me, but it's a definition, not an encyclopedia article. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD isn't something you can repeatedly use until you get the 'right' result. And WP:IAR can work the other way - it can be kept because although it isn't much more than a definition, it won't be found in many dictionaries and thus is useful. Your encyclopeditron (however much I like the word) claim has no evidence supporting it. Trebor 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. Any word, term, or phrase could be turned into such an "article" consisting of its definition plus a list of some instances of its usage in culture. An article on a term should be about that term in a more meaningful way than this, such as through an expansive description of its meaning, etymology, and/or history of usage (and a horrible word can make for a good article). Postdlf 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No way should an article be made to face a sixth AfD. I don't accept the argument that a definition and a few instances means that it's a dicdef. It's hardly in mainstream usage (I hope!) and is a valid and verifiable entry into the sexual activities area of Wikipedia. The integrity of Category:Sexual acts is at stake if we start arguing about what's encyclopedic and what's a dicdef. There is no harm with the term appearing here and Wiktionary if necessary. Mallanox 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your fears are unfounded, I think. Legit sex acts clearly deserve a place here. Hey, I'm a perv myself, having engaged in golden showers, and I wouldn't let any legit sex act get deleted without my strong opposition. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JoeJance - I believe that this is not just a definition but a chunk of modern American culture. I disagree with deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.142.103 (talk • contribs)
just a random reader FWIW, from a non-contributors point of view, it was just partially referred to on a US television program known as "prison break" and I came here looking for the meaning.. I know there are 'frank' listings of sex things at wikipedia, and I decry deleting it as well, even at 36 I need a place where I can go for information with out feeling embarassed.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.27.122 (talk • contribs)
Keep this is a clear abuse of the AFD system. This like GNAA is a clear example of deletion for deletions sake. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, that's precisely why it should be deleted. GNAA is a horrible article, a total piece of crap, and it should have been deleted unilaterally by a rouge admin long ago. If that leaked to the press, Wikipedia would look like a White Power hate site. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the fifth time -- possibly, erect some sort of bar to renomination. The world has all kinds of ugly sides; we don't discriminate. The article is short but encyclopedic. John Reid ° 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't five consensi (plural) enough? Rockpocket 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or better yet speedy keep. This is beyond ridiculous. Like it or not, this is a widely known and used term, and the article, while brief, is well referenced. Get over it. Silensor 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I insist that there has been no policy based argument to keep, ever, for this article. I've scoured the pages, and I haven't found anything but "keep, I've heard of it," "keep, important to popular culture (i.e., TV)," "keep because of previous AfD's. Does anyone know Anderson Cooper or Keith Olberman? This would make good copy for them and extract the urine from WP in the process. Mr Spunky Toffee 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notable slang for an extreme (though possibly apocryphal) sexual act [131] [132] [133]. Same principle we have articles on facial (sexuality) and felching. Passed into popular culture per examples above, in the article and [134] [135]. What policy dictates we delete? Rockpocket 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facial and felching are commonly used terms for real sexual acts, and in both cases major subgenres of pornography appear to be based on them. This is not a widely used term and no subgenres of pornography appear to be based on it. It's a dictionary definition plus a few bits of original research. Guy 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above reply contains numerous wildly unverified claims. Ironic, given the editor's position on why the article should be deleted. Additionally, drawing comparisons between felching/etc. and cleveland steamer is inappropriate, as the former is (as has been mentioned) notable due to its incidence in pornography and related areas, whereas the latter is notable due to its permience(sp?) througout mainstream popular culture. -- Y|yukichigai 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crystal clear bad faith nomination made by a single purposed account mere days after the fifth AFD was closed. roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: As has been mentioned, this is a highly suspect nomination, particularly given the short lapse in time between the previous nomination. Additionally, the article clearly meets the core qualifications of notability and usefulness. Regardless of the incidence of the article's topic as a bona fide sex act, it nonetheless has integrated itself into popular culture all the same. -- Y|yukichigai 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm calling "shenanigans." Your arguments are patent nonsense, based on no policy whatsoever. "...clearly meets the core qualifications of notability and usefulness?" Please provide a link to that policy. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google returns more than 125,000 matches for the term, [136] so it is likely that people will look to Wikipedia for this information. What we have now meets verifiability standards. Yamaguchi先生 22:02, 14 November 2006
Strong Keep. I've looked over all the AfDs and, while I agree with most of the nominators that this is disgusting (I seriously wish I could scrub the info out of my brain), that's not a reason to delete it. I believe this is more than a simple definition. This article should focus on the origins of the phrase and how it has seeped into popular culture. So this article just needs an overhaul. Transwiki if you want to, but don't delete. - Lex 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

The list portrayed here lacks of any sort of historical, useful or valuable content other than simple curiosity. The topic is not notable and doesn't comply with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also the significance of "virtue rewarded", as opposed to any other subtitle, is not explained, thus seeming completely arbitrary S0ulfire84 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the extensive intro? Neither of your points are accurate.--SB | T 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the extensive intro and I still fail to see how is the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" any different from any other, what makes it special or different from any other that makes it worth to have an article or list of it's own. Would you mind clarifying why do you see it being notable? S0ulfire84 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there is some serious importance, actually, although a real list article can't point it out. The subtitle, prior to Pamela, indicates an attempt at either Plutarch's or Aristotle's notion of poetic justice: it will improve the audience by demonstrating what must or should occur (poetic justice) and ennoble the reader/viewer. After Pamela and its extraordinary fame, the subtitle indicates either an homage or ironic counterpoint to Samuel Richardson. Geogre 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the lead could make this point more explicit. It's a bit wandering and unconvincing (on the point of importance) at the moment without this information made clear. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can understand that, hut how is it notable when it has only happened 12 times in 400 years? I guess it's a list of homage attempts to the concept of Poetic Justice? I'm sure there are more attempts that do not include the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" than those that do. How is then this list notable then? S0ulfire84 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the solution might be to merge with the Pamela article since a case could be made for these being influenced by the work? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It's an interesting and well-sourced article; I don't see that deleting it would improve Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is genuine knowledge in this article. scope_creep 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ". See WP:NOT. S0ulfire84 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Well-referenced, neutral, and interesting articles are exactly what encyclopedias are for. I might suggest that it be moved to simply Virtue Rewarded, as the current title is rather awkward.--SB | T 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Write an equally well-written and -sourced list/article hybrid on any other specific subtitle you care to, and we can keep that one too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hates lists. I hates 'em to pieces. However, once we let the bleaters in, we have to assess them by their own criteria. This is not inherently POV and does not have an open ended include/exclude, so Keep. It's true that the list doesn't make an argument, but that's because lists never do. (Yeah, I know who wrote it, but I still hates lists.) Geogre 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read the intro, and it still looks like arbitrary listcruft to me. Delete Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Hyperbole Giano 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make than main article Virtue Rewarded with a redirect from Virtue rewarded, as SB. This isn't listcruft, this is a valid literary article. Unfortunately "List of ..." tends to invoke "strong" reponses. --Steve 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is irrelevant, its not even that common of a subtitle.Communist47 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I hope you read it. Of course it's not a common subtitle: that's why it's a functional list as opposed to one of the usual "list of songs that mention their titles more than three times in their lyrics" sort of random collections. Geogre 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I'm missing the point but as there's obviously millions of books, there's obviously going to be loads of subtitles. There's obviously going to be common ones and uncommon ones. I'm sure if you find a subtitle, there's going to be other books that have the same subtitle just because there's millions of books. As much as I like the meaning of the subtitle, I can't see why it's so why it’s so significant. Englishrose 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is well written but still is listcruft. meshach 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is well-written and interesting and I imagine some people will find it useful. Everyking 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Communist47. Listcruft in extremis. - fchd 18:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Pamela. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, After reading the intro which is also in Subtitle (titling) so there’s no need to merge it there, it turns into listcruft of book that contain the same subtitle. Obviously there's thousands/millions of subtitles and you're bound to get a collection of subtitles with the same name. Wikipedia is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Englishrose 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no relevance? Its poetic justice, dude. It is very skillfully organized, more of a checkered matrix, or array than a list tho'. Keep fo' sho'. DVD+ R/W 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bunchofgrapes and Everyking. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the material, but it needs some reorganisation, or the article needs renaming, or something. At the moment it's is an odd mixture of the list indicated by the title, plus some general discussion about book subtitles, of which is "Virtue Rewarded" is said to be "an example". Matt 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
Keep, though I'm more of a Justine man myself. Haukur 11:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lǐ Wèi

This is an article that I previously speedy-deleted and that was recreated. (I think I was in error in my original speedy-deletion in that I didn't consider the claims to qualify as "notability", but they might be and so I really ought to have nominated it for AfD then.) This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is a member of the chinese acedemy of science, which is China's premier science organisation. scope_creep 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep president of a major universty and a prominent scientist. We should however find someone who knows Chinese who can help with the translation of the material there and provide more references. JoshuaZ 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article - but I don't think that means I should abstain. I tried to repond to the original speedy deletion - but you were too fast for me. This person is a distinguished alumnus of the University of Edinburgh, President of a major (if young) University and is an elected member of the Chinese Academy of Science - the equivalent of the US National Academy of Science. Michael Fourman 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, per JoshuaZ --Oakshade 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Performance Events (2nd nomination)

Was deleted before under afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Performance Events; however, a google search seemed to show it might have notability, on top of the fact that someone else nominated the article -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should just be flagged for speedy deletion V8Cougar 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the reason I didn't flag it for speedy is that it appears to me that it might be notable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article has not merit or notability whatsover. scope_creep 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this has even less claims on notability than at the last AfD. I speedy tagged it but an admin has pulled the tag. BlueValour 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Envy

Non-notable: fails WP:MUSIC Ollie 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC; only "album" is self-release via iTunes. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Its a puff piece. scope_creep 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crabbing

Delete, unsourceable gaming-related neologism/dictionary definition. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completelty unsourced. I've been playing online for years and never heard the term. The editor is likely trying to introduce a new term. scope_creep 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete l33t hax0r protologism. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Otis

Non-notable former college football player who reached an NFL roster 10 years ago but never played a game with them and was released, who knows if he could be working in a Burger King or some other non-notable job now so WP:BIO is an issue. About 300 google hits for Scott Otis football, most of them wikipedia mirrors, so WP:V. Was deprodded so taking it here.

Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, failing to assert notability. Its another puff piece. scope_creep 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy the professional athlete (on the technicality that he never played) and the "top amateur level" (only played for a NAIA school) clauses of WP:BIO. Caknuck 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete despite the intervention from the wikipedia deletions manager (see the history). Yomangani ^talk 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cramp

Mostly a hoax, though there appears to be some truth to the claims this teacher has written books. This should be a candidate for speedy deletion, if ever I've seen one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing to assert notability and the article seems to be a hoax. scope_creep 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should be a speedy, but it was badly vandalised though, the non-vandalised version only says that he is an high-school economics teacher who wrote one textbook, fails WP:BIO nevertheless so Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verging on speedy; once you get past joke edits, does not pass WP:PROF test. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO / WP:PROF. Hoax. See also this notice by some of the authors. MidgleyDJ 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although their rationale is rather amuising. Sorry kids. MKV 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO hoax, Much of his earlier work was published under the pseudonyms, D.H. Lawrence and Jane Austen.--Dakota 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin two or three 'do not delete' edits have been reverted from this discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive they

Wikipedia is not a street dictionary. Starbucker 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wheres the sources. Fails to assert notability, and why the non standard stub entry. scope_creep 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad substandard use of the word "they". Starbucker 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a street dictionary, or a dictionary for that matter, can't be transwikied, and it's improper grammar anyway. Dooms Day34 9 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh R. Rao

not notable professor Swpb 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Again, another vanity piece, failing to assert notability. scope_creep 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love, Loss, Hope, Repeat. Standard procedure for non-notable album tracks. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The War Was In Color

The song, while I love it and all, is not a single or notable outside the album itself. The article is full of POV statements and original research which, if removed, would cut the article down to basically nothing. If kept, the article needs to be moved to fall in line with Wikipedia's naming policies. Dismas|^(talk) 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to aseert notability. scope_creep 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, and I can find no sources that assert its notability. --SunStar Net 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dismas. This is a great band, but an entry for every song is not necessary, and this isn't a single or unusual in any other respect. Chubbles1212 04:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of creation

This page is simply rehashed creationist propaganda, hopelessly POV, unsourced, contains fallacies, runs afoul of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but perhaps some of it can be scrapped, fixed, and merged into Creation. Dooms Day34 9 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a front for propaganda, and as a Christian, I find this to be downright embarrassing - it makes baby jeebus cry. =( --Dennisthe2 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV Delete as unnecessary fork and skewed. Definitely breaks two prongs of our NPOV policy. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all above. This article was pathetic when I first saw it. I ended up making major changes to restore NPOV, but I think it's better if we just delete the damn thing.UberCryxic 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~Change name & major rewrite if it can't be Merged into creationism Although creatism is a load of tosh, the creatist argument is one which must be covered in any decent encyclopedia. The article not only gives a lot of useful information for someone researching the subject but it also has a really nice picture! My initial thought was to merge it into creationism but that article is already quite a hash of different subjects and might benefit from separating out which is why it might be appropriate to keep. Obviously it would have to be rewritten to make it balanced giving both pro- anti point of view. --Mike 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article and even the title is POV. The article only deals with Western, Christian views of creation and fails WP:CSB. (After all, everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.) --Charlene 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument for christian creation is such a well known subject that it really needs to be covered. I tried to work out what the appropriate vote was but I'm stuck. I'm convinced the name needs deleting, but can someone comment on another name. What if the article were called "Creationism (Christian)" and within that article were set out the argument for creation as found in this article followed by the article against creationism? If I were writing an essay I would find it useful to have the information in this article available in order to know what I was arguing against. I looked at Creationism and it really doesn't seem to cover what this article does, nor given its current size does it seem appropriate to add to it. If a factual article could be produced describing the argument used for creation and the kind of events that are cited as fact, it would be useful to have and encyclopedic, in the same way Wikipedia covers fascism, without supporting the philosophy.--Mike 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is notable, and of use to the general public who will want to know more about a current public debate. To avoid bias, would should have a Arguements for Creation article or somesuch for balance which basically this article seems to be. I'm not saying it should be given the same weight as other theories supported by the scientific community though. The whole creationsist/evolution debate is Christian in the US context, and that should be clarified or expanded to cover other creation theories. Robovski 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy or Creation-evolution controversy. This topic is already covered heavily in wikipedia meshach 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever useful info can be salvaged (which may not be much) into another page per other comments here (I prefer to creationism). It would need to be rewritten; as now it is way too POV (hotly contested content and clearly fallacious content stated as fact). Else delete. Baccyak4H 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mesach, nothing here to merge which isn't already covered, better, elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Jim62sch 13:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creationism already has its own page. This stuff is just WP:BOLLOCKS.Leibniz 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is a biased page with information that should be covered under Creationism. Riverbend 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep ~ trialsanderrors 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prathap C. Reddy

I removed the speedy tag on this article because the article does contain assertions of importance. Whether there is substance to these is debatable, and that's what AfD is for. Being a procedural nomination, I abstain. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Completly fails WP:BIO scope_creep 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that failing WP:BIO isn't a reason to speedy-delete. If it were this wouldn't be at AfD. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverified biography lacking in sources and references, unless suitable reliable sources can be found in the next five days. (aeropagitica) 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asserts obvious notability (health-care pioneer), pending sources. but why 5 days? the initial nom. & that proviso can only help to keep WP hopelessly lop-sided. articles don't go for lacking refs. we have {{references|article}} for that. → bsnowball 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that asserting notability is only enough to keep an article from being deleted on-sight, not for keeping at AfD. The usual metric for AfD is whether it can be demonstrated to be notable. There is certainly information out there on him[137], but finding indepedent coverage is the litmus test we're going for. This press release about an award given to him might qualify as independent as it's a press release by the awarding organisation rather than him or his hospital group. (It's mentioned again here in the paper The Hindu, and here again, but since they're repeats they all together only count as one instance of coverage for notability's criteria.) More evidence like this will show that he's notable enough to have an article. An argument could also be made that he's made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" by founding the private health industry in India, but that would require more digging to substantiate. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As references I would add the following press release [138]from John's Hopkins. While not 'independent' it asserts that Apollo Hospitals is the largest private hospital group in Asia. The Washington Post makes a similar assertion.[139] That's pretty significant. For me the question is whether being the founder and CEO of a large company confers some level of notability upon the founder. I would say that there is some there. Montco 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's some, but it's not very much. The notability requirements are designed to make sure that there is sufficient independent coverage of the specific subject of an article so that it can be written in line with Verifiability policy by people who aren't already intimately familiar with the subject (and so also satisfy NPOV policy). So, we really do need sources specifically about Dr. Reddy. If we can't find any now, it's possible that he'll get more coverage in the future and so be ready for Wikipedia then. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree to Montco though the article needs clean up IA (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- IA (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is the founder of the most well known hospital chain in India and one of the first names that springs to mind when one thinks of doctors or even entrepreneurs. Will try adding some refs -- Lost^(talk) 13:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lost. He is a significant pioneer in providing world-class healthcare in India and developing medical tourism as an economic sector. Mereda 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Now I've added a 2001 reference from Business Line which describes him as the "best person in India to talk about the provision of healthcare services as a business proposition." He also seems to be a pioneer in telemedicine but I've added that point to Apollo Hospitals. OK? Mereda 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely Notable. Not notable as a doctor, but notable as a health care pioneer. Please use the correct criteria for deleting an article. Any article can be deleted by listing under the wrong category and looking for some other criteria for notability. I cannot understand why this has been called as failing WP:BIO (The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field). A search at google, even within inverted quotes gives hundreds of pages and coverage from major media. Doctor Bruno 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lost, Mereda and article. Very influencial business person in the medical industry in India. --Oakshade 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep - None has the right to question the notability of a Padmabhushan award winner. It is one of the highest honour given by India government. In addition to that we have to give more weightage to User:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas comments because he is an expert in medical field since he is also a doctor. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 + possible copyvio from their own wiki --humblefool ® 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Tree

non-notable flash animation, does not comply with WP:WEB. Simonkoldyk 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy" delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete and protect. --Daniel Olsen 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed the Camel

Delete as failing WP:BIO, no WP:RS to satisfy WP:V. This is probably a CSD A7 candidate (under which it has been deleted twice), but the tag keeps getting removed, so here we are. Protect recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The content is the EXACT same as the last two deletions, nothing new to assert notability. Delete and protect. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to DC One Million - Yomangani ^talk 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman prime

Delete as nom. Nonsense entry with no cited sources or interlinks in attempt to claim its existence in fiction or reality. Tagged for cleanup with two indentically named sections. Has also become a prime—no pun intended—target for vandalism. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What exactly is this supposed to be? Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Off the top of my head, I think there are supposed to be different universes or continuities in the DC multiverse (or somesuch) and this would be a history of Superman Prime - as in the most real reality or the 'prime' (possibly from Prime Material Plane, originally a D&D reference) universe of exsistence. I couldn't tell you if the content was cruft or not, but some sources would be a big plus towards not for me. I'mccertain there are far more geeky comics people around who could say. Robovski 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was avoiding replying because I didn't want to turn this into a review of the content, but I can assure you it's just cruft. I'd imagine it was based on Superboy-Prime in name and just went crazy from there. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just cruft, then I say Delete. Robovski 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not Superboy this is DC One Million. See below. FrozenPurpleCube 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think I'll give a bit of explanation for the non-comic book folks here. Ok, over the past 50+ years of history, the story of Superman, like many comic book characters has undergone some changes in creative line-up and design. His backstory has been retold, and reinvented. Sometimes this has been simultaneous with on-going stories, and sometimes it has been a deliberate rebooting by the publisher. Anyway, for various reasons, a decision was made to give an in-universe explanation for some of this, basically, there are times when a Superman from one universe has met one from another. There have also been various alternate versions of Superman like Superman: True Brit (Superman lands in Britain not Kansas) and Superman: Red Son (Superman as if he'd landed in Russia). Anyway, there's a list at List of alternative versions of Superman and this entry is covered there, but in an alternate article: DC One Million. Since that article is MUCH better written, I say redirect there. FrozenPurpleCube 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DC One Million. - Lex 05:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Morgan

Subject is not notable. Only google hits appear to be subject's website. There are other Julian Morgan's out there but not this one. Checked IMDB, Artfact, and AllMusic Glendoremus 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete has no merit and fails notability assertion. 80.229.232.253 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any article describing its subject as 'legendary' generally means 'in his own mind'. Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cleanup and/or merging appear to be popular compromise options that should be considered. JYolkowski // talk 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roseville area middle school

NN middle school. Most edits are vandalism, article is more like a sandbox for the kids. Hús ö nd 23:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Some of the content copied directly from here.--Hús ö nd 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the offending text. JoshuaZ 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matterial was copied. It was only edited by kids from the school who wanted an article about it.

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any notable aspects of the school on Google. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. -- Kicking222 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no non-trivial indepedent sources so it hits WP:V problems beyond being a directory stub. Even past that it has no notable alumni, no teams or clubs that have performed at a notable level and no notable staff. I am able to find absolutely nothing notable about this school. I won't cite WP:SCHOOLS3 because that might look too much like me plugging my own standard so I will instead simply point out that it even fails the generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per WP:SPCHOOLS3. Not much to merge atm, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Kappa 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect Considering the article is barely a week-old, it's off to a pretty good start. Way too soon to start consideration of deletion. That it's a vandalism target is justification to block the vandal or sprotect, not to delete. In the vent that there is not adequate support to keep, information should be merged to Little Canada, Minnesota. Deletion is destruction. There is no valid reason for a straight delete if there is a reasonable target for a merge. Alansohn 06:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it is notable enough for that (well, just mention it on Roseville, Minnesota and be done with it), otherwise delete. No reason apparent to have an individual article for this non notable school.Fram 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are several kids and teachers who know about this page and have edited it to tell about the school.This page should be kept. And Yes there are notable teachers here. Mrs. Margot Olson won an Honarble mention in Disney's teacher awards. The morning choir has performed at state conventions to before. Despite recent vandalism this page should be kept. 1 Chameleon 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)1 Chameleon[reply]
I don't know who vandalized it but if I catch Lighthouse Viking... But some of the edits were true. Like the current play is "Hey! Nice Shoes."

Note this was 1 Chameleon's third edit on Wikipedia, the other two being to the nominated article.--Hús ö nd 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. We delete failed congressional canidates with more news sources than this. Arbusto 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school of local interest only. D e nni ☯ 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "All of this information comes from the RAMS website, planner and school." Nice when an article tells us straight out that no independent sources are being used. Without independent sources, there is no hope of satisfying both the WP:V and WP:NPOV sources at the same time - and no matter which it fails, deletion is the right answer. Those that advocate merging should follow the spirit of {{sofixit}} and just do it, merging only verified material of course. GRBerry 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete do not keep per above discussions lacks notability. Vegaswikian 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! THE PEOPLE OF RAMS NEED THIS!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.115.105 (talk • contribs)

Keep or Merge as per Alansohn. Mark complaints and identify things that need improved or fixing, see if it can be salvaged, or merge. Deletion is an oversevere response for this article, inmo, and should be a recourse after discussion is fruitless and merging won't work.Riverbend 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge this one might be a better option but no need to erase this since it is verifiable Yuckfoo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you delete this page you should also delete the Roseville High School PAge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.1.1 (talk • contribs)

'Keep per Alansohn. That it's a vandalism target is no reason to delete. bbx 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since some assertions of notability are made within the article. Many different type of articles are targeted for vandalism due to the nature of our open editing environment, this alone is never a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 22:11, 14 November 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hanzus

Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO, except maybe in the strictest most unflexible application of the guideline. The person is not encyclopedic or notable. This may be vanity page - the only other edits by the creator of this article are to The Pearl River Memorial Pub Crawl, which is also up for deletion by AfD. Agent 86 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced personal web-page-sounding entry for an essentially un-notable guy. DMacks 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert any notability. scope_creep 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of original UK episode airdates for The Young Doctors

Soapcruft in extremis. Do we really need this? If we do then surely the dates can be included into the main article on the series, not here. If we do. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absurdly trivial. The very embodiment of an indiscriminate collection of information. Guy 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The airdates don't belong here on wikipedia. Certainly this would be fine stuff for a fanpage or an idependent wiki for TV soaps or the show (if there is one) Robovski 02:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurdly trivial fancruft... regional variations on show times! Bwithh 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm SURE I put a speedy deletion on this one, but the history says differently. Must be losing my mind. Gekedo 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of original UK episode airdates for Prisoner

As above (List of original UK episode airdates for The Young Doctors). Soapcruft in extremis. Do we really need this? If we do then surely the dates can be included into the main article on the series, not here. If we do. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absurdly trivial. Guy 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme luftcraft as Grutness says. scope_creep 00:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not needed here. The proper place for this is the show's wikispace. Robovski 02:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Good grief. Don't think this even belongs in the show's wikispace. I mean... regional channel schedule variations?? Bwithh 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except for the 25+-year controversy over the order of the episodes (qua coherent storyline) and this data is the fandamental evidnece from which either side argues. If there is a section, within a Prisoner articel that treats with the controversy, then this belongs there; if there isn't, than either it gets to stay, or Wiki wilingly ignores a canon/fanon/Baker Street Irregulars circumstace. No vote, as I don't know Wiki-policy that well. One of the Cabal will. -- Simon Cursitor 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article and redirect. Orginal transmission times/dates are fairly standard info. Per network may be a bit over the top, but is more accurate. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51 10 November 2006 (GMT).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babyfur

Wikipedia is not a dicktionary, espeecially not Urban Dictionary. This is a neologism, an intersection of the (small) furry community and the (also small) infantilism community, giving a very small community indeed, and one for which there appear to be no reliable sources. This belongs on Wikifur, where it already exists. Guy 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologism and as per nom.--Dakota 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (1) Dicdef (2) Neologism (3) furry-cruft. (4) Precedent set by deletion of Wikifur. Anomo 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought you were on a furry kick. I've no strong opinion on this article, but please understand quite clearly that the deletion of a website about a topic does not give you carte blanche to start deleting every article that has some relation to the topic. GreenReaper 05:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, WP:WINAD. WarpstarRider 14:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO requires reliable secondary sources about a neologism before Wikipedia has an article on it. None are visible. GRBerry 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete and can I have the few seconds I wasted on reading that article back please? Yet more furrcruft. Pete Fenelon 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism. Shimeru 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Byrd

Non-notable (and all sources point to missing web pages), despite being "a man of universally dreamy repute"... Schutz 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as biocruft Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A vote of universally deletey repute Links to the newspaper stories don't work, and thus are not verifiable. Caknuck 05:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or even have any claims of notability. I love the "a man of universally dreamy repute" though. Wickethewok 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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