Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

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 if anyone wants to tackle merging it, let me know and I'll userfy -- Samir धर्म 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Public Opinion Regarding the United States

[edit]

Leaving aside for one moment the dodgy capitalisation of the title, which could be easily fixed, I'm not sure about this article as it currently stands. It looks like the sort of thing which could easily waver between OR and essay with little substance to back it up. granted it does cite a poll, but this seems lopsided to say the least, possibly to the point where cleanup alone won't fix it. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 19 December 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 hopeless, hopeless lack of consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (sexual slang) (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Santorum (sexual slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(1st AFD) The information in the first five sentences of this article is already in Santorum Controversy. The "References in the media" section is original research unless it can be shown that sources independent of, say, the Economist took note of its reference of "santorum." Everything else in the article is unsourced and unsourceable by reliable sources that are independent of Dan Savage or those working to popularize this neologism. "Santorum" itself fails WP:NEO, which requires reliable sources about the neologism. I didn't wade through all the Google hits, but a cursory look shows lots of unreliable, POV sources like blogs, and I found zero sources in a Lexis-Nexis search (even in local Pennsylvania sources) that discuss "santorum" beyond a dicdef or verify the material in the article beyond the first five sentences. The ADS award,[1] of which so much was made in the first AFD, is trivial, and the ADS source provides only a dictionary definition, nothing we can build a Wikipedia article on.

I'm puzzled why the first AFD resulted in keep. The closer said there was "substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability." But, assuming "encyclopedic notability" refers to the primary notability criterion, I think the closer's conclusion is untenable, given that the first AFD produced, and the article right now provides, no non-trivial, reliable, external sources of which "santorum" is the subject, which we could use to write a verifiable article. Many keep voters in the first AFD cited "widespread use," but again, at Wikipedia we need reliable sources about the term, not sources that use the term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I suspect that many people who will come to participate in this AFD are shocked that anyone could think this term is not notable. To them I would emphasize that notability has an objective meaning on Wikipedia: if someone can find multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about "santorum," then that would establish notability. Otherwise, not.

In conclusion, delete for failing WP:N and WP:NEO. There is no sign that there is enough source material to re-write or reference this article in a way that conforms with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Pan Dan 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Pan Dan (not to mention thats disgusting) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк|соήтяївѕ) 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, and merge the description and story of the term's coining into Dan Savage I see now it is already there in Savage Love so that's not needed. This is not notable enough by WP:N for its own article. Perhaps add to List of Internet phenomena also. StoptheDatabaseState 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete into Dan Savage. SkierRMH 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article meets all content policy and criteria. The article itself includes references to independent non-trivial coverage in the media and elsewhere - I don't need to repeat them as they're there for the reading. It's a bit tenuous to say that there must be multiple references then dismiss out of hand the multiple references. Just because one says they are "trivial" does not make them so. The term has been around long enough that the "neologism" label is starting to wear thin. I fail to see how it fails WP:OR when secondary sources are cited. There is also no evidence to show it fails WP:NPOV, etc. It appears the strongest reasoning against the article is that it's not "notable", relying on disputed disputed policy that is still under discussion. It strikes me that the other key reason this is up for nomination is because it is "disgusting" or offends someone's political point of view; however, Wikipedia is not censored. The term has clearly taken on a life of its own and is certainly more "notable" (if relying on that alone) than many of the other pop-culture terms or memes that have articles. Nothing has changed to alter the reasoning for "keep" from the prior AfD. Agent 86 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "references to independent non-trivial coverage" -- If you mean the story in The Philadelphia Inquirer, that story is about Santorum the man. There's exactly one sentence in there about "santorum" the term. The ADS reference is no more than a dicdef. All the other references are unreliable. WP:N does have a disputed tag on it, but WP:NEO does not, and this fails WP:NEO. Pan Dan 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (further comment) Even if you think the neologism label has started to wear thin (even though "santorum" is still not in any reputable dictionaries as far as I know), then it's a word not a neologism, and WP:NOT a dictionary applies. Whether it's a word or a neologism, it doesn't belong here. Pan Dan 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the proposer of the original AfD. I became convinced that the political act by Dan Savage was notable, but it seems clear to me that the term itself is not a successful neologism. There are no citations in durable media by independent sources. Savage's use of the term as a political stunt (not intended as a pejorative term) was very successful, and that act needs to be recorded in WP somewhere. I would be happy to see the article changed to "santorum (sexual slang activism)" or something that ceased to imply it was a successful neologism. I'd also be fine with deleting it, so long as the information is mostly retained in Savage Love. Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing per nom -- it fails WP:N due to lack of sufficient non-trivial coverage, and especially WP:NEO, so WP:NUKE it per problem-article deletion criterion number two. Also, it's disgusting like Malevious said, but I doubt that is a sufficient criterion for deletion. WP:N and especially WP:NEO violation however is, since the latter is mentioned in our nuking policy. Glad to see that people aren't just saying "NN, D" here and actually citing real policies and guidelines! :) 74.38.33.15 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--RWR8189 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere Per WP:NOT wikipedi is NOT A DICTIONARY. If source material can be found, transwiki to wiktionary. In any event, it doesn't belong as an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last afd. Just H 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what the agenda is here but the subject is clearly notable. The use of a politician's name as being synonymous with so extreme a term is extremely unusual if not unique. As to independent sources to confirm notability:
  1. At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004
  2. The Economist referenced santorum in a January 5, 2006 blurb about Sen. Santorum.
  3. The Daily Show referenced the term in its July 12, 2006 and December 11, 2006 episodes.
That seems a lot of international attention for a new sexual slang term- which is hardly going to be the mainstay of the usual news media sources. As pointed out in the previous AfD, the word may well outlast the senator...WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As became apparent in the last AfD, there are certainly people who dislike the senator who nevertheless voted Keep, so I don't think we can assume an agenda beyond what's in the nom. With regard to the American Dialect Society: the nomination of a word for one of its categories requires no documentation at all; the words voted on are (per an ADS member) typically "stunt words". I think the nomination is evidence of the notability of the political act but it is not evidence of the spread of the neologism. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replies (to WJBscribe)
  1. Per Mike Christie and per my nom (did you read it?) the ADS award is trivial and the content of the ADS source is no more than a dicdef, nothing to build a Wikipedia article on
  2. Per my nom (again), WP:NEO requires sources about a term, not sources that use a term, because that's what a dictionary is for. Gathering a list of sources that use the term is original research (again, this was also explained in my nom).
  3. Ditto. Pan Dan 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to WJBScribe's "clearly notable" and "the word may well outlast the senator" -- That you think this, is a sign of your social and political circles. As I stated in my nom, I expected some people to be shocked that this term could be non-notable. I then reminded folks that notability has an objective meaning on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I did read your comments. Frankly I'm confused by your call for sources about the term rather than those that use it. Those are what are provided. Neither the Daily Show nor the Economist were describing fecal matter and happened to use the word 'Santorum' in that context. But were concerned by the fact that the word Santorum was coined in notable circumstances and is now in use. The Daily Show is admittedly a satirical programme, but one with a considerable world-wide viewership. The Economist however is a totally serious economic and political journal dating back to 1843. That the term has become notable enough for it to be mentioned by that paper in an article about the Senator shows that it is notable not only in the US but also in the UK. Such coverage seems to me to satisfy Wikipedia's objective notability criteria. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the coverage does not show notability of the term is that it's not coverage of the term, as required by WP:NEO, which explicitly requires reliable sources "about the term -- not [sources] that use the term." In this case, the term is being "used" in the midst of coverage of the Santorum controversy -- exactly what WP:NEO disqualifies -- and everything in this Wikipedia article that is reliably verifiable is already in Santorum controversy. (The reference in the Economist is anyway claimed in the Wikipedia article to be only a "blurb" -- I can't even find it on Lexis-Nexis, I guess it just appeared in the online edition(?)) Finally, I want to apologize for suggesting above that you didn't read my nom, and have struck through that. Pan Dan 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I found the reference in The Economist via Lexis-Nexis -- it is utterly trivial; an aside: "Meanwhile, gay activists use [Santorum's] name to denote something indescribable in a family newspaper." That's it. Pan Dan 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to write an article that reports the words usage by major media as examples of how it has penetrated into mainstream awareness. That is not synthesis, it is basic reporting. SchmuckyTheCat 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it synthesis or reporting, it's still OR. Pan Dan 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Do you mean sources for notability or for meeting the criteria for WP:NEO? If the latter, could you cite some? The conclusion on the talk page at Wiktionary when they deleted it seemed to be that all the cites purporting to show actual usage were non-durable and not independent of Savage. I've not seen a single source that supports independent usage in print form, as opposed to reference to the political act and/or controversy. Mike Christie (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something is "trash" does not necessarily mean it's not worth an article - and I'm not totally clear on the Lima Beans analogy...--Dmz5 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue, as WJBScribe does above, that the sources are "about" the term. We are not searching for sources that simply use the word as a synonym for fecal matter; in all cases, the source specifically points up the fact that the Senator's name has been coopted in this manner. I'm not sure what else you want - is this not WP worthy until the New Yorker publishes a cover story detailing the emergence and history of the term? --Dmz5 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all Wikipedia criteria for notability. The Senator will live on like the Earl of Sandwich, Judge Charles Lynch, Charles Boycott, or Henry Shrapnel, long after his particular contributions to 20th and 21st century American politics are forgotten. Keep in all frothiness. Edison 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like argument by assertion to me. Do you have any evidence that this meets our criteria for notability, or that this term will live on? Allow me to make the same diagnosis here as I made with WJBScribe: If you think that the term can't possibly be non-notable despite fruitless searches for reliable sources, that may be a symptom of the social and political circles you travel in. Forgive me if I am being overly presumptuous. Pan Dan 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentOK, per Agent and WJBscribe arguments above. The article presents multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources to show the notability of the term. Your efforts to debate each Keep vote and to have the last word notwithstanding. Please do not use strawman arguments in which you ascribe to others arguments they did not make so you can shout them down. Please do not make persona.l attacks on those who express views other than yours such as your comments about "a symptom of the social and political circles you travel in." That is a violation of WP:NPAEdison 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (This is not a substantive comment so I'm not violating my promise below to comment no more :-)) Re: "social and political circles" -- It was my intent for my phrasing to be merely descriptive, not pejorative, but reading it through, it does sound pejorative. Plus, you're absolutely right I had no business making that "diagnosis," pejorative or not. I'm not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV. I apologize to you and WJB, and have struckthrough it. Pan Dan 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's an article on something some comedian made up. It seems like fancruft, the article states that there is a concerted effort by fans to turn this into a neologism (making this article fail WP:NEO and possibly WP:COI too). Non-notable neologism and fancruft. It will soon be forgotten. Just the fact that the term needs its own website to get people to notice it is a clear indicator that it isn't notable. --Sable232 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a) Dan Savage is a “comedian”? I’ll bet he’d be shocked to discover this. Have you told him? Can you name some comedy clubs where he’ll be performing? Interesting! b) Per “cruft”; that’s an essay, not a policy. c) WP:COI? Really? Would your love of cars be a conflict of interest in your editing articles about cars, thus preventing your ability to be NPOV? I see no evidence of that in your contributions. Are you failing to assume good faith? I hope not. -- weirdoactor t|c 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with BigDT and Sable232. Mets 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIntrinsically trivial, but the American Dialect Society nominzation makes it notable.DGG 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have substantially revised the article (treating it as an article about a word and its cultural/political repercussions, rather than a dicdef+origin), and added citations to major & print media, some of which directly support claims of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still reviewing your revision, but what I see so far looks like more of what there was before: OR, primary sources, and unreliable POV sources. The one exception seems to be the Slate source, which is no more than a paragraph about "santorum" and the ADS award. Pan Dan 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have used primary sources to demonstrate the timeline of creation (which was vague and incorrect before), not for notability. I have tried to make every thing I added a cited assertion, and several of those citations are print media. I'm sorry they are not to your liking, but there is no prohibition against what you call a "POV source" (since all sources have POV). Wikipedia policy requires us to cite POV assertions, but does not prevent their use in articles. I didn't have anything in particular I could do about the website section right now, so that's still unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for coming off so harsh before. Your revision is exceptionally well-written and well-organized, I'll give you that, but still problematic, I think. First, as to POV sources, when the only sources on a topic are POV, it's impossible to write an NPOV article. (I also think that when the only sources taking note of a topic are on the same page politically, the topic's notability should be questionable, but that's open for discussion.) Now let's go over the article. The lead and background are already in Santorum controversy. The "Contest" section, as you acknowledge, is only verified in a primary source, so the propriety of having that material in Wikipedia is questionable. The first paragraph of the "Popularity" section uses one sentence in one source to establish a tenous (at best) connection between "santorum" and Santorum's iconic status as a social conservative. The "Web activism" section, as you acknowledge is unsourced and, I think, is likely sourceable only by primary sources. Now we come to the only material in the article that I think may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia -- the Slate reference. The POV problem remains however. Slate is a reputable source, but its bias is well known, and in the absence of other sources covering the ADS award, I don't think inclusion is appropriate in the final analysis. In any case, this source yields only 4 sentences about the term -- fairly trivial (though not totally, I'll admit). Finally, the rest of the article, is, yes, original research, as a synthesis of various media references of the term. Most egregious is the hint, every so subtly dropped, without the support of any reliable source, that the term may have contributed to Santorum's defeat. Pan Dan 09:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (further comment) So, the big picture, in my view (fwiw): The term itself fails WP:NEO. The ancillary material about origins and repercussions is not reliably sourceable -- except for the material you added that's based on the 4 sentences in Slate. I wouldn't object to a merge of this material to Santorum controversy and/or Savage Love. (Or you could insert it yourself so a merge is unnecessary.) However the Slate reference cannot by itself sustain a stand-alone article, because it's brief (wrt the term) and because there are no other sources to balance the POV. Pan Dan 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the added references is to an article by Jesse Sheidlower reporting on the ADS meeting. It should be noted that Jesse has said that he does not think the word has real currency. So far I have seen no references that demonstrate currency. Again I think the important point is to distinguish WP:NEO arguments from WP:N arguments; "santorum" fails the former, but is a notably successful political act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC).:[reply]
  • Keep simply because there's no consensus. -Toptomcat 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the effect that this term has had on pop culture, and indeed, Santorum's credibility is notable enough for inclusion. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have evidence that this term has had the effect you suggest, so that we could write a stand-alone article on this beyond what's in Santorum controversy? Pan Dan 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do YOU have any evidence that it HASN'T? -- weirdoactor t|c 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any evidence that is has?  :-) But seriously, we can't write an article on a hypothetical effect just because you (or any Wikipedian) thinks it exists and is notable. It has to be covered in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party sources, so we can write a verifiable article. Pan Dan 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's clear the onus is not on Pan Dan to disprove notability- that we can all agree on. Still, this article seems to be "covered in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party sources" and "a verifiable article" of a good quality has accordingly been written about it. I don't see that more sources should be necessary or that any good reason for discounting the present ones has been provided. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Re: "good quality" -- I think we can all agree that Dhartung's rewrite is of excellent copyedit quality (I wish I could write and organize as well as that). The problem is that everything in the article (except for the 2nd and 3rd sentences in "References in media" section) is either (1) verified by a primary source, (2) original research, or (3) already in Santorum controversy. Moreover there is still no sign the term itself passes WP:NEO. The 2nd and 3rd sentences in "References in media" section are verified in a reliable (though POV) source, which is why I would not object to merging those two sentences into Santorum controversy (though Dhartung can do that manually himself to preserve GFDL credit). Pan Dan 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what you mean by POV source. There is no requirement that sources be neutral, most will be advancing a point of view. The usual response if one feels a source is partisan is to counterbalance with another source that shows the opposite point of view. In this case, one that claimed the word had seen little use out of the Dan Savage context and had failed to become part of wider popular culture. AfD is not the place to address problems with NPOV or lack thereof- that should be done in the editing of the article. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point about the POV source is somewhat trivial as it only concerns those two sentences, as the other sources are all either unreliable or primary. But as to the POV issue itself: you make a good point -- "the usual response...is to counterbalance" -- but, I'm afraid, you reach the wrong conclusion: "AfD is not the place to address problems with NPOV." In this case, there is no sign that it is possible to write the article using counterbalancing sources, because those 4 sentences in Slate are the only (even slightly) non-trivial source anyone has found. Pan Dan 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE I couldn't care less about politics so I feel fairly neutral when it comes to political-based articles like this. Anyway, my thoughts are theses:
1) The TERM itself must be the subject of mulitiple, non-trivial, independent, Reliable, Reputable, third-party sources. What that means is that just like any thing else, the sources have to be reporting on term, not using it. Non-Trivial means that the news/magazine/web/tv/radio article must be completely about the term and nothing else. A sentance or paragraph in a news/magazine/web/tv/radio article talking about a different or slightly related matter does not make that source non-trivial. It's a mention in passing and disqualified as a source.
2) Many of the keep votes here are not baseing their arguements on policies but rather their POV. "simply because there's no consensus", "[the] effect that this term has had on pop culture", "per last afd", "[because] no one uses wikitionary". Many of the delete opinions have been made using the wikipolicies to back their comments. I argue on policies, not POV thinking.
3) Comments that the term will live on after the senator is gone is Crystal-balling. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In its revised form, it's a textbook neologism article. Plenty of good citations of print publications and others discussing the term. Uucp 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of citations, yes. Good citations, no. The 4 sentences in the Slate reference are the only non-trivial (just barely) material that discusses the term in a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with Uucp, unless I am completely misunderstanding guidelines this does seem like a textbook neologism article and, to repeat a comment I made above, I am not sure what further sources people could be demanding - it occurs to me that this article is being held to an exceedingly stringent standard re: debates about the validity/primacy/notability of every source and statement. I look at those sources and I see multiple, non-trivial discussions of the term itself - no Times cover articles true but nothing to sniff at so easily.--Dmz5 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see multiple non-trivial discussions on Savage's own website -- but see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:INDY. I see the somewhat non-trivial 4 sentences in the Slate reference; this is not enough to build an NPOV article (or any kind of article, it's so brief), which is why I have suggested that be used as source material for a couple of sentences in Santorum controversy. In all the other references, even the ones that I would reject as POV and unreliable, I see a passing mention, a usage, or a dicdef. Pan Dan 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with Pan Dan. I DO NOT think that Slate reference as a non-trivial coverage. My requirements are the same as wikipedia's. Articles must be about the term itself and nothing else. They should talk about the term, it's uses, history and such. A paragraph in an article about the senator or about the senator's comments are not what I call non-trivial sources for the TERM. However if I am over-ruled in this case by the closing admin, then I wish to point out....that's only ONE non-trivial coverage. Multiple (and in practice, admins usually hold articles to an unwriten 'three sources' rule) sources do not exist. So the the American Dialect Society called the term Most outrageous of 2004...doesn't matter. Something to mention but NOT a source. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to mee like it meets notability criteria and sources are reliable. delldot | talk 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uucp; this does seem to be a "textbook neologism article", and a well-documented one at that. Furthermore, I've looked at the diff between this article immediately after its last AfD and its current state, and the changes are fairly minor. If the result was "Keep" back in August, I'm not sure what has changed in the article that would change the result of this subsequent AfD. Seventypercent 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. It fails WP:NEO. Period. I happen to like the word and dislike the former senator, but still, it is clearly a neologism, and a politically motivated non-neutral one at that. If the word survives, in a few years it can be reconsidered for its own article. --SECurtisTX 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that due to a large overhaul of the page, all votes before the overhaul of the Wikipedia article should not be counted. That is all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Last I heard, an AfD was not about "votes" it was about the quality of arguments for or against. Seeing as how most of the delete statements do not deal with the quality of the article as much as the fact that the article is not encyclopedia material. As such, I have re-read the article and come to the same conclusion as I had before. Delete as a non-notable neologism and fancruft. User:Bschott said it best I think. --Sable232 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Further reply to Sharkface) I don't think the rewrite addresses any of the concerns of the delete comments (of course, I can only speak for myself for sure). The term itself still fails WP:NEO and WP:N. The article still contains original research. The article is still verified only by primary sources or unreliable POV sources. For example the Philadelphia Weekly source just added is dripping with POV -- not surprising given that the Weekly bills itself on its website as "alternative" which is code for leftist left wing. Pan Dan 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that isn't a pretty POV statement in itself. If one has to "reaffirm" ones "!vote" because of the changes, I emphatically reaffirm my comment to keep. The improved article certainly addresses the issues raised, and the only contrary argument seems to be to dismiss them or to treat them as if they aren't there. Agent 86 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "If that isn't a pretty POV statement in itself" -- did you read the Phil. Weekly source? My statement is completely justified. It is also well known what "alternative" means in this context (I have changed leftist to left wing, I don't know how to say it without sounding at least a little bit nasty). (2) Could you explain in what way you think the article now addresses the issues raised? Pan Dan 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pan Dan; could you let these folks know about the change? Thanks. -- weirdoactor t|c 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrggh, you got me!  :-) But no, in this case the Phil. Weekly is a left wing paper. Plus, I just found out that Dan Savage writes a weekly column in the Phil. Weekly -- so the paper is not even independent of Savage, and so that source violates POV twice over. Pan Dan 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo....am I to understand that any newspaper that buys Savage's syndicated column would be suspect? And by extrapolation, any paper that buys a syndicated column by any "left wing" columnist would also be suspect? And would this also apply to "right wing" columnists? So, any paper that buys Ann Coulter's syndicated column would ALSO be suspect, and not a WP:RS? -- weirdoactor t|c 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is independent of Savage in the sense that he doesn't work directly for them. However the fact that the Weekly syndicates his column does raise questions of non-independence as the paper benefits from promoting its readers' interest in Savage's columns. And, the left wing-ness of the Weekly is unquestionable, and the POV of their write-up on Savage referenced by Dhartung is unmistakable. Pan Dan 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of reliable sources is perhaps the most troubling part of the nomination for me, and I find it to be completely unfounded. Dan Savage sources are used to identify the term and chronicle the events surrounding its creation, precisely as a primary source must be used as per WP:RS. As it was once put to me: "In the absence of a secondary source, we use a primary source for uncontroversial claims about the subject. Such primary sources can't establish importance, but they can be used for simple, uncontroversial claims in the absence of any alternative secondary source."
Moving on, I fail to see how this article "fails" WP:NEO, as it (#1) does not use the term in the article except by way of definition or example, (#2a) is an article about a neologism, not just a definition, (#2b) is backed up by verifiable sources, such as The Economist, Tuscon Weekly, and the Daily Show, concerning both the nature of the word as well as the use thereof, and (#3) is supported by the same secondary sources listed previously. The assertation that the article does not meet some arbitrary "minimum secondary source count" such that it still does not satisfy WP:NEO #3 is another fundamentally flawed argument, attempting to create a requirement where there is none. While it is true that there are not an overwhelming number of secondary sources to support the article, the permience of the term in common sources is naturally limited due to the fact that it is a sexually explicit term; as such, any expectation of finding secondary sources should be adjusted appropriately.
Finally, the issue of notability should be no issue at all; though the appearance in common or popular media is spotty, the term has nonetheless been used in a major magazine as well as a major and significant nationally broadcast cable news/comedy program at least twice.
Additionally, I find the nomination fundamentally flawed from another significant point: the criterea used to nominate this article for deletion are all guidelines, not policy. Guidelines are either suggestions on how Wikipedia articles generally should be constructed, (e.g. the Manual of Style) or they are synthesized suggestions on how to interpret Wikipedia policy. (e.g, WP:NEO) If an article can only be nominated under the justification of guidelines but not the underlying policies upon which the guidelines were constructed then the most one should justifiably expect to happen to an article is that it be rewritten. Guidelines by definition are more flexible and likely to have exceptions, and as such should not be used as a rigid measure of whether or not an article should be deleted. -- Y|yukichigai 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, regarding your point that it's OK to use Dan Savage as a primary source for the circumstances surrounding his coinage of the term: The problem here is not just the reliability of Dan Savage as a source, it's that the efforts being described are those of Savage advancing a POV about Sen. Santorum, and these efforts cannot be described in an NPOV fashion because no external reliable sources have taken note of these efforts. It's really a failure both of WP:NPOV and WP:N. I would further say that in the absence of external sources that have taken note of Savage's efforts, it is unwarranted to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising these efforts.
That brings another point to mind: there is no policy prohibiting the use of POV sources, only prohibiting the creation of POV articles. Just because an article is dripping with personal opinion and the like does not, under any circumstances, necessarily mean that there are no facts which can be extracted or otherwise referenced from that source. Had the Dan Savage references been used to assert the notability of the topic there would be a serious argument. As it is the references are only used to 1) define the term, 2) show that he held a contest to determine the definition, 3) show that he set up a website to promote the popularity of the term, and 4) provide a quote as to his response to certain key events. Again, these are all perfectly permissiable uses of a primary source. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no policy prohibiting the use of POV sources, only prohibiting the creation of POV articles" -- would you not call this section of the article POV? It's about Savage's efforts to advance a POV about Sen. Santorum, and these efforts have been been non-trivially noted by no mainstream media source. It thus calls attention to a negative aspect of Santorum with no possibility of counterbalancing sources. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By itself the section would appear to promote a POV. However, the section is in relation to the origin of the term and is simply detailing the history, the facts behind the origin. While there was a POV behind the term it is nonetheless a relevant piece of information concerning its origin. While no currently cited secondary sources have specifically covered the topic of Savage's efforts, secondary sources have covered the term itself and briefly touched on its origins. The expansion or augmenting of this information with more detailed information from the primary source is perfectly acceptable. I hate to Godwin myself here, but would you cite an article on the Nazi party for POV issues because it mentioned their hatred of the Jews? You would not, because the article does not advance that POV, but rather mentions it as a relevant fact about the Nazi party. -- Y|yukichigai 06:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad comparison. The Nazi party, and its hatred of Jews, is well covered by many, many sources inside, outside, supportive of, and opposed to the Nazis. Savage's campaign was covered only by himself and non-independent sources. Pan Dan 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second, regarding your points about WP:NEO: The problem is not that the article fails WP:NEO; only neologisms can fail WP:NEO. The article fails No Original Research for synthesizing information about "the nature of the word as well as the use thereof," as you put it. Your point that the refences are verifiable is irrelevant in the face of WP:OR. Moreover, the term itself does fail WP:NEO, because there are no non-trivial reliable external sources about it.
You're splitting hairs here; it applies to the article, it applies to the word, whatever. The point is that it does not apply here because each one of the provisions the article/word supposedly fails has in fact been met. As to WP:OR, there is no synthesis of information done on the article side, beyond the mere collection of information. Each statement is clearly referenced and directly reflected in the sourced material; there is no conjecture, assumption, or any drawn conclusions present in the current version of the article, and I challenge you to explicitly cite any statements you think are Original Research. The most you can argue is that there are some weasel words present, which is an issue for the article's talk page, not AfD, but on the offchance I'm wrong I think it is highly likely that any OR could easily be removed, leaving the article intact. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"no synthesis of information done on the article side, beyond the mere collection of information" --"Collection" is "synthesis". We cannot at Wikipedia take note of media references of a term, unless those references have been noted by other media. This is because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The entire section titled "References in media" is thus original research, except for the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Note, that if this kind of synthesis were permissible, there would be no point to WP:NEO's requirement of sources that discuss a neologism as opposed to sources that just use it. As for WP:NEO itself, the term fails it because WP:NEO requires that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." I'm not sure what #1, #2a, 2b, 3, refer to in your original comment -- those numbers are not in WP:NEO. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check WP:OR#What_is_excluded?: none of the article content falls into any of those categories. The closest you can come is the section which first defines the neologism itself, which as we've already determined meets the qualification of having a reliable source: the primary source. (Though notability is not established by that source) Collection of information is never Original Research unless it directs the reader towards a particular conclusion; collecting information, after all, is the very core of Wikipedia.
Dictionary writers take note of usages of a term, or trivial references to it that don't go beyond a definition. It's not what we do at Wikipedia.
Actually, what you're talking about is an encyclopedia entry. A dictionary entry would simply be the raw definition of the term with, at most, a one sentance mention of the term's origin. -- Y|yukichigai 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You appear to be unfamiliar with what dictionary entries may contain. Entries in Wiktionary, for example, may contain far more than "the raw definition of the term with, at most, a one sentance mention of the term's origin". That is a stub dictionary article, as far as a dictionary like Wiktionary is concerned. Full Wiktionary articles may also contain usage notes, translations, pronunciation guides, inflection tables, synonyms, related words, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, and multiple quotations demonstrating the word in actual use for each meaning.

This word was rejected from Wiktionary because it could not be demonstrated that anyone independent of its coiner was actually using it in running text. Uncle G 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it much matters this late in the AfD, but I believe both Pan Dan and I were talking about actual Dictionaries, rather than the Wiktionary. -- Y|yukichigai 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note further that the synthesis in this article falls under bullet #6 in WP:OR#What is excluded?, as it "introduces ...a synthesis of established facts...in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor" -- viz., that "santorum" has been referenced in various media-- "without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Pan Dan 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Collection of information is not synthesis. Synthesis would be creating new information or conclusions from existing information. Simply gathering information into one place is not synthesis by any means, and in fact, as I said, is the very nature of what Wikipedia is. -- Y|yukichigai 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement of WP:NEO that their exist secondary sources about the term in question does not specify that those sources be exclusively about the term, and there are not one but four separate secondary sources (if I count right) listed which talk about the term. It would be counter to logic to assume that there is such a requirement, as I can think of no neologisms (with the possible exceptions of Truthiness and Wikiality) which have ever had entire articles from reliable sources devoted exclusively to the term.
The problem is that the references are trivial. The article is not now based, nor could it be re-written as based, on those references. (Not sure what four references you mean, but every reference listed is either trivial or in a primary or unreliable source.) Pan Dan 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my numbers, they correspond with the sections of WP:NEO going from the top, with #2a and #2b corresponding to the bullet points. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third, regarding your point that my nomination relies on guidelines, which you say are "flexible and likely to have exceptions," unlike policy. You're right that the difference between policies and guidlines is that the former may never be overriden, while the latter may. Still, there has to be a good reason to override guidelines -- especially dealing with WP:NEO and WP:N, which are directly based on the policies of WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. You have given no good reason to override guidelines in this case. Besides, as I explain above, the article in its current form blatantly violates WP:OR. Pan Dan 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that the guidelines should be ignored; my point is that guidelines should never be used as the exclusive basis for an AfD nomination. As guidelines are more subject to interpretation, exception, and outright being ignored any nomination that uses them as its sole basis will be on shaky ground at best. If an article really needs to be deleted then you should be able to cite violations of actual Wikipedia policy, rather than the "derivative works" thereof. (as it were) -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are articulating here a pretty idiosyncratic idea. Guidelines are cited all the time as reasons for deletion. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, yes. As the exclusive reason for deletion? Well, perhaps in some instances, but just because something worked in one AfD doesn't mean it was correct. My point is that if you can't cite the core policy or at least some other policy as a reason for deletion the appropriate course of action is not AfD, but rather a rewrite or article cleanup. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have argued that there is no way to rewrite or source this article in a way that conforms with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Pan Dan 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: Your speculation that the term is less likely to be found in printed sources because it's sexually explicit is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated: irrelevant because sources are a requirement at Wikipedia, and there can't be any "excuses"; and unsubstantiated because the term, its effect, its origins, etc., could be discussed in print without explicitly rendering the definition. Pan Dan 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ; the fact that we are talking about a guideline specifically qualifies the use of "excuses", as you put it. The issue of notability to which my statement was concerning will be directly influenced by the relative vulgarity of the word, as it precludes its appearance in certain groups of media. You would not, for example, expect an article on the term felch to appear in the Christian Science Monitor. As for my argument being "unsubstantiated": this is an argument, not an article. I don't need sources for my arguments to be valid; common sense works just fine. -- Y|yukichigai 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we need non-trivial sources to write the article. As for your argument being unsubstantiated, perhaps I used the wrong word. I should have said, maybe, unconvincing. The reason it's unconvincing is, as I said above, that the term, its effects, origins, etc. could be discussed in print without ever rendering the definition. Pan Dan 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have non-trivial sources. Obviously you disagree on this point, but I've pointed out, repeatedly, major and significant sources which have discussed or used the term. Combined they form both the justification for notability and secondary sources suitable for the article. -- Y|yukichigai 06:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break

[edit]
  • Is it the coinage a notable political act?. I think the answer is absolutely clear; yes, it is. The citations in durable media that have been given (without any exceptions that I can see) attest to the political act's notability.
  • Is the coinage successful in that it has entered the language in a permanent way? The article rightly says that this is unknown. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that it has. There is a long list of usage citations on the talk page at Wiktionary; these were all assessed (by an editor there) as failing to come from independent sources. Several people above have made comments to the effect that it has entered the language, but no evidence has been presented beyond the citations which (I would argue) only show the effectiveness of the political act. It also needs to be acknowledged that part of the political action that Savage and his readers are engaged in is explicitly to make the word appear to be in general use. I'm not criticizing this, just commenting that it's evidently so, and that this makes the need for citations in independent sources paramount before any assertion can be made (on WP, at least) that the term has real currency. Without independent evidence, WP should not state that the term has entered the language. We clearly do not have that evidence.
  • Should the political act (and hence the coinage) be mentioned in Wikipedia? The answer is pretty clearly yes; the citations make a strong case.
  • Does it need a separate article? This one seems trickier. Although I don't suspect any particular editor here of not acting in good faith, I have to say that if I were one of the people who followed Savage's exhortation to "get the word out there", I would argue strongly in favour of keeping this as a separate article. That's because that would in turn lend support to Savage's stated goal of having an established word out there to outrage the Senator. However, given that AfD is not a vote, I don't think this is too much of a concern; the closing admin is going to look at the arguments, not the votes.
  • What should the title be, if it's a separate article? I could support a separate article if it were (a) clearly titled in a way that made it about the political action by Dan Savage, and not titled in a way that makes it appear the word has gained real currency, and (b) made clear in the title that the content would be offensive to some. This latter criterion is important for the following reason. Suppose that we title this article "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)". Then on the dab page, someone might click on the article who might be very offended by the content. This is precisely the goal intended by Savage's campaign: to present Santorum's supporters with this offensive material as a jolt. We should present this information in such a way as neither to further nor unfairly hinder Savage's campaign. WP is not censored, so that's not the issue: the issue is that we should not mislead viewers with the title. The current title accurately meets criterion (b), but not (a). A title such as "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)" meets (a) but not (b). The only way of ensuring both would be some title such as "santorum (sexual slang term coined as political act)". That would work for me, but a merge back to Savage Love seems more sensible, because given that the entry is really about a political act, it fits naturally within that article. Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pan Dan: at this point, can you honestly say that there will ever be consensus for this AfD? I see this as more of an example of concrete political polarization rather than an actual debate about the deletion of a Wikipedia article. Your thoughts? You’ve been so quiet for the last half hour. Hee. -- weirdoactor t|c 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as for consensus, the closing admin will determine that. As for the arguments themselves, yes, some of them have been going around in circles. However Mike Christie has just come in with what I'd call a middle position; I will be curious to see what folks think of his views. As for political polarization, I have to disagree with you there, I don't see any evidence of that, although I anticipated that many Wikipedians, who travel in liberal social circles, would weigh in with comments like "of course this is notable" -- see 3rd paragraph of my nom. I don't suspect anybody here of bad faith, I just think many folks have an inflated view of the notability of this term because of their social circles. Sort of like movie critic Pauline Kael (a liberal living in New York City) exclaiming after Nixon's 1972 landslide victory (he won every state but Massachusetts), "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."  :-) Pan Dan 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a liberal living in New York City? Seriously? Pan Dan, did you pull that out of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly "phrases used to rile up conservatives" playbook? Dude. I consider myself to be pretty moderate, but that sort of thing sickens me, and muddies my good faith for this AfD, unfortunately. Unless it was a joke. Was it a joke? Please let it have been a joke. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fascist from Brooklyn and even I think it's notable. Ford MF 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think it's notable? As in, "it's notable because all my friends have heard of it and use it"? That's exactly the point I was making by saying Kael lived in NYC -- she had a liberal social network and her view of what was going on in the country was badly skewed for that reason. Had she been a liberal living out in rural Missouri, she would have had a different social network and therefore a different view. In addition, what you say makes me suspect that your concept of notability may be subjective, and, as the venerable User:Uncle G said to me a while back, notability is not subjective. Pan Dan 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So because I'm from a blue state I'm unfit to evaluate the notability of this article? As for my "liberal social network", when I said I was a fascist that wasn't a euphemism. I genuinely believe people aren't fit to democratically govern themselves (this debate reminds me why). As to the "subjectiveness" of notability, don't be silly, of course it's subjective. The fact that it's based on "non-trivial" sources, with "non-trivial" left nebulously defined, pretty much assures at least a degree of subjectivity. Clearly the disagreement here is that you believe the article's citations to be trivial, while a good number of disagree. Objectivity, on Wiki as everywhere else, is a goal to be striven for, not something that is ever actually accomplished. Just because the venerable Uncle G says a thing doesn't make it true. Ford MF 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I consider myself to be a bit of a slang/jargon junkie, but I don't recall having heard/read drive-by media before today. -- weirdoactor t|c 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are making my point beautifully. You heard of the neologism "santorum" because you probably have friends who are fans of Dan Savage (or friends who are friends of fans, or, etc.). You never heard of "drive-by media" because you probably don't have friends who are Limbaugh fans. Is your concept of notability subjective too? Pan Dan 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that because the term isn't universal among all political and cultural strata, it's not notable? Ford MF 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I have more than a few friends who are "Ditto Heads" and fans of Fox News. I travel in strange circles, being a gun loving social libertarian/fiscal conservative from Texas, living in Illinois. Interestingly enough, I first heard "santorum" from one of those "Ditto Heads"...I've only recently become a fan of Savage, who is surprisingly conservative for a sex columnist. Example: he's still (today, at this moment) FOR the war in Iraq. -- weirdoactor t|c 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aarrghh, got me again! I stand corrected, at least in your case :-) Pan Dan 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(further comment) I notice, however, that you didn't answer my question. Is your concept of notabilty subjective -- if you think this term is notable, do you think so just because you've heard of it, or because you've examined the sources? You give no sign in your original comment in this AFD. Pan Dan 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't answer your question because a) I found it to be a rude insinuation on your part that I chose to ignore and b) it seemed off-topic. I'll answer it now: Yes. MY, me, weirdoactor's concept of notability is subjective. As is yours. As is that of everyone on Wikipedia. Does that affect my ability to follow Wikipedia policy? No. I'm not religious; but I revert vandalism and copy-edit religious articles. Just because my personal beliefs and opinions do not match up with Wikipedia policy, that doesn't mean I am unable to FOLLOW said policy. Again, you assume bad faith; something you seem quite skilled at, Pan Dan. It's getting tiresome, as is your Wikilawyering. -- weirdoactor t|c 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering Lecturing, I plead guilty. Bad faith, no way. Your comments so far have made no references to sources, which is exactly what objective notability is about; in fact your original comment made a claim about the neologism that I don't believe is backed up in any source. It was therefore reasonable for me to ask you whether you looked at sources. It wasn't off-topic either; we were discussing the reasons why you thought the neologism is notable. However, since my question clearly offended you, which I had no wish to do, I apologize to you for the offense, and I withdraw the question. Pan Dan 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. I also think that we could have a very lively discussion on why some users do/don't find this notable. However, even if one concedes that this term is popular primarily to "liberals", it doesn't have an impact on the sources at hand and the article's assertion of notability, which of course are what this debate is about.--Dmz5 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've already debated the sources and the objective notability of this term, so I won't address those again here. But I agree with the basic point you're making -- the popularity of this term among liberals is irrelevant to the debate itself. However its popularity among liberals may -- just may -- help explain the views of some people in this debate. I suspect no one here of bad faith, but I do suspect that some are reaching their conclusion about this article based on a skewed perception of what's subjectively notable to them, instead of judging notability by looking at the sources as you have, Dmz. Pan Dan 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, but I believe they leave out 'Santorum (sexual slang)' as to keep a level of professionalism, whereas wikipedia has more articles as a result of good contributors and reliability. 'Nonsensical' juvenile based articles such as sexual slang threaten Wikipedia's integrity. Perhaps a few lines is acceptable but users go too in depth. Look how long the page is.....- RiverHockey 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a) Wikipedia's integrity is more damaged by censorship, bad faith, and partisan political deletion, not by inclusion of a notable term that helped unseat a powerful US Senator. b) Look how long the page is? Is article length a reason for deletion? If so, will you do me a favor, and nominate this for deletion? Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed! I also doubt that the term had "little" to do with him being unseated. It had a lot to do with him being unseated. He lost considerable credibility within his own party at being the...um, "butt" (HA!) of a national joke. I understand why you don't WANT to believe that, based on your particular leanings; but keep in mind, I'm a MODERATE who is defending the term, not some Green Party moonbat. Does that tell you anything at all? -- weirdoactor t|c 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I live in Pennsylvania and voted for Casey myself, and the slang terminology 'Santorum' had no impact on my decision. Pennsylvania voted him out because they were tired of him mimicking Bush's views/votes. The sexual slang played little, if any role at all, with his defeat. And, hypothetically, if sexual slang unseated a senator, our nation is very sad. -Yours truly, the voice of reason -RiverHockey 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding both above comments, I have no trouble at all understanding the arguments for deletion, particularly Pan Dan's. I just disagree on a perhaps philosophical level. I truly hope that the tangential injection of an essentially non-partisan politically-oriented discussion above doesn't taint editors' impressions of the good faith in which the delete !votes are being made. --Dmz5 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with American politics as most Editors, I imagine, so I'll steer clear of that - specifically, the more I read the relevent articles, the more Santorum seems to be a more important politician than I had guessed. That said, I also understand Pan Dan's argument for deletion, but it's factually incorrect in a number of regards. Tangential discussion of politics + lots of delete !votes on a article no reasonable editor could !vote delete for is a highly suggestive situation - I was hoping editors would take a reminder to be objective. I think WJB's noting that:
  1. At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the Most Outrageous Word of the Year 2004
Really says it all. WilyD 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whaddya mean WJB noted the ADS selection? I noted it first! In my nom! Give me a little credit here  :-) Now, would you care to point us to the multiple non-trivial independent media mentions the ADS selection received? or to point out where my argument is "factually incorrect in a number of regards"? Pan Dan 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to give you credit for noting it first. I mentioned WJB because I stole his phrasing. Apart from which, you accuse the article of failing WP:N, which is patent nonsense - lots of reasonable coverage have been noted here. Your nomination also says the article fails WP:NEO - again, patent nonsense. Third party coverage has a sort of weird quality to it. Most of the references aren't quite trivial, albeit they are fairly shallow. A lot more comes directly from Dan Savage (which I suspect you'll argue is not a third party source - a position I'm not convinced either way on). Apart from which, as low as my opinion about rotten.com is, it's almost certainly a reliable, third party source (ugh!). WilyD 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for articulating what you think is wrong with my arguments. You're conflating coverage, which both WP:N and WP:NEO require, with usage or trivial references. The references are trivial, because they are nothing to build an encyclopedia article on without conducting original research. However, even though I disagree with what you say, I'm not going to call it "nonsense" or "factually incorrect." Neither is my argument, even though you clearly disagree with it. Pan Dan 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(comment on rotten.com since you mentioned it specifically --) The rotten.com source is about what Mike Christie called Savage's political act, and is already in Savage Love. Pan Dan 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being far too generous in what you're calling Trivial coverage. Trivial coverage is of a fundamentally differnt nature from Shallow coverage. A large number of shallow sources can be used to build an article, a large number of trivial sources can't. 'Duplication of information is also not a criterion for deletion - lots of articles duplicate information found elsewhere, if only for readability's sake. This also serves developmental purposes and the like. WilyD 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the ADS listing I noted in the first AFD that Jesse Sheidlower (the US editor of the OED, who was at that meeting) said that the ADS listing "should not be cited as proof of currency", and went on to say with regard to selection for those categories that "the only criterion is that someone nominates it. Many of the words we select, esp. for categories such as 'most outrageous', are stunt words with no real currency. The nomination or election of a word in one of the ADS words-of-the-year categories has nothing to do with whether the word is truly current." As with all the other citations, this supports the effectiveness of the political act but not the currency of the word. Mike Christie (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite - the ADS award confers notability (at least partially) WilyD 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing can "confer" notability except for being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources. Pan Dan 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my comment to the effect of "partially" WilyD 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my wikilawyering lecturing (not actually sure what wikilawyering means, so better not plead guilty to it...). Whether this is closed early or not, I promise to make no more comments here unless a new source or proposal comes up. However I'm not the only delete voter here. And I wish especially that folks would respond to Mike Christie's reasonable and thoughtful analysis. Pan Dan 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably shouldn't even sugest this, but merge to Dan Savage might be a possible solution. --Sable232 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Agent 86 and others. I heard the neologism used long before I ever heard of Dan Savage, and it has outlived the Senator's current senatorial career. Its notable that a Google search of the phrase "Man on dog" leads straight to the Senator and his Wiki controversy article too. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-dee-doo on the Google search. The left's beloved "miserable failure" doesn't have its own article on Wiki - the phrase redirects to the Google bombing article. Also, whoop-dee-doo for you hearing the term used in the given context. Doesn't mean it's notable. This neologism is far, far less notable than Fitzmas, which you claimed you'd vote for deletion if it were nominated. Jinxmchue 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you are defending this largely unknown, little used neologism while seeking to delete the article on the much better known and more widely used "idiotarian." I think you need to explain this inconsistency (which should be most amusing). Jinxmchue 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just thought this image recently uploaded is an interesting commentary on the editor's position in this discussion.--RWR8189 08:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my position. I think the article can be condensed down to a paragraph (covering its origin, meaning and handfuls of subsequent uses elsewhere) and merged with Savage's article. Jinxmchue 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please remove your personal attack from your Delete vote, and restrict comments to those on the merits of the article, not your views on the personal characteristics of those who voted to Keep. Otherwise you appear guilty of violating WP:NPA. Edison 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment At this point, Pan Dan has posted 4249 words in 51 posts in this deletion discussion, compared to 7285 by all others combined. The article in question, with all references, etc., only amounts to 1,979 words. Edison 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Gosh, Jinx. I had no idea I was part of a "small group of unhinged Republican-bashers". I thought I was part of a large group of unhinged moron (Demon-crats, Republiscum, Greenie-Weenie, etc.) bashers. I also thought that there was a policy about personal attacks on Wikipedia. Your vote comments are clearly a personal attack, so I must have been wrong! Thank you for helping me see the light! Yay! Oh, one question: is this a "desperate attempt to skirt" WP:BIO? -- weirdoactor t|c 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, Weirdo, I thought I was referring to Savage and the other handful of the loony-toons left who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome and regularly use terms like this and not to anyone here. You clearly can read my mind better than I can, so I must've been wrong! Thank you for helping me see the truth. Blah blah blah blah blah. 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxmchue (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep + I'm Here to confuse and add more info:Proquest has 358 articles on Santorum. But most of them, maybe all even, are on the Person Rick Santorum. For example The Advocate, Los Angeles: Oct 24, 2006. , Iss. 973; pg. 5, 1 pgs, says:
"Would we like to see Rick Santorum skulk out of the U.S. Senate with his tail between his legs? Absolutely. Would we lift a single finger to campaign for Bob Casey? Absolutely not... We realize that we don't speak for every gay and lesbian voter, and we recognize and appreciate the work queer activists in Pennsylvania have done to educate voters about the "pro-family" Santorum and his distinctly antifamily agenda."[2]
There are other articles such as "US government restricts abortions [Santorum Bill]" or "Two Catholic American evangelicals" Anonymous. Catholic New Times. Apr 10, 2005.Vol.29, Iss. 6; pg. 7 says "Santorum is the Senate's third-ranking Republican, the "standard bearer of social conservatives on the Hill," taking the point position against gay marriage, abortion rights and judges who defend either. He meets monthly with evangelical leaders, and his staff regularly taps evangelical broadcasters to mobilize support for their common agenda. Santorum, 46, is said to have presidential ambitions."[3]
(My original research and instinc say:) This sexual dirty santorum article and it's "new" definition may be an attempt to slander the name of a potential presidential elect.
For example, Rick is considered one of the shrewdest players in the front ranks of the faith-based Republican Party George W. Bush and Karl Rove have erected.[4] Ironically, I found this wiki article via a left winged Anti-Americanistic users talk page. His talk page says it all and I think this entire article may be a satirical attempt to insult this politician. Ironically it appears to be vehicled in strict compliance to wiki rules! I don't see anything really bad enough to warrant deletion. The irony is still existant and I could understand why some people may want to delete the article. Take for example Newsweek, New York: Jan 3, 2005.Vol.145, Iss. 1; pg. 89, 3 pgs states "As the third-ranking Republican in a majority soon to expand to 55 members, Santorum is close to the White House, operates one of the largest personal campaign funds and is a point man on hot-button issues ranging from gay marriage to Social Security." I haven't read through this vulgar wiki article but I bet you anthing it is the anti-thesis of Rick Santorum.
The debate will probably continue on for a long time. And I believe it is related to the person Rick Santorum. Newsweek has even said:
“[RICK SANTORUM] had better get used to it. Attacks-from right and left-are sure to rise as he juggles the sometimes clashing roles of Senate power broker and cultural militant. "Rick is going to have to help make sausage like the rest of us," said a fellow Republican senator. "That is going to mean sometimes saying 'no' to the base." Yet he can't do that too often or he'll lose what is distinctive about his political persona.”[5]. Maybe this material should be merged as an with the article Rick Santorum, or maybe it should just stay here, or maybe it should be removed as an attack on Rick. But it seems to meet WP:V, WP:CITE?. So long as we are not saying it! I think wiki should be legally Okay! --CyclePat 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think this article should definitely be on Wikipedia. First, the term does get used often enough and someone will likely look to Wikipedia to explain what it means and where the term came from. In that sense the term is much more encyclopedic than it is a dictionary term. Also the term has gotten used here at Wikipedia to describe one of the high ranking members of the Wikipedia community who does a fairly poor job here. I'm afraid that is probably the alternative agenda behind this AfD. This is just the type of steps these Wikipedia invaders do when they see one of their coconspirators attacked: they circle the wagons. --Listen to the music now 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Yes, you're right. It's not a vote. Poor choice of wording on my part, though I think it makes my point (which is the important part). 2) The AfD discussion for "idiotarian" was just closed a few minutes ago. Perhaps if people were more consistant, that article wouldn't have been deleted. 3) "Idiotarian" is far and away better known and more widely used than "santorum" or even "fitzmas." That much is obvious. Jinxmchue 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad for not checking the closure time. But to say that Idiotarian is obviously more widely known than Santorum is clearly false. I, for one, have heard Santorum in my real life, never Idiotarian or Fitzmas. This may be a regional or political or social or economic thing - as people, all we need to have in common to be here is a basic grasp of English - so what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others, or even true. That said, I've little doubt some a few "voters" used to Do I know about this in real life test? that although unsanctioned, I see applied often (and have probably applied once or twice myself). WilyD 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My reasoning as well. When I heard the term used on The Daily Show, (and Air America - to a lesser extent) it became 'mainstream' and notable, IMHO. It just got another RS V notable mention : "Should Santorum sign with Fox, they'll probably have to do something about his web presence. The first thing you get when you google Santorum's last name is sex advice columnist Dan Savage's approved definition of "santorum" - "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Ewww." TV Squad Dec 12 - F.A.A.F.A. 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've implied above in a couple of places that I don't think the term meets WP:NEO. However, I think I have to agree that it does meet the letter of the reliable sources part of that guideline. This makes it an odd case, because it seems to me clear that the term has no real currency, and nobody has presented any evidence that it does -- just assertions. So we have a term that is not a demonstrably successful neologism, but clearly is a successful something. Hence I still feel either a rename or merge is the best answer; the current title is misleading. Mike Christie (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that my own personal experience that the term has gained currency by the Gay community is insufficient, I went on-line to see if I could find it used that way. A quick search found this and this. Considering the nature of the word's definition, it will be difficult to find much evidence, but I have shown that it is out there. -- Samuel Wantman 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of words that are "out there," yet they don't deserve a place on Wiki. A neologism such as this that has very limited exposure to the general public and even more limited usage even among those who know of it is one of those words. Jinxmchue 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, I'm a conservative, heterosexual foreigner, and I've heard it in the field. WilyD 05:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has no "policy" on neologism. WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, and I find it distressing how many people treat guidelines as Holy Writ: that which passes the guidelines deserves to stay, that which fails them must go. This is not the case and never was, nor should it be. This is a term that was coined as a political attack, and I doubt (despite WilyD's undoubtedly good-faith assertion) that there are any reliable sources that have used the term without the underlying political intent. In a few years, after Rick Santorum has faded into obscurity, if the term is still in widespread use, by all means create an article on the subject, but for now the article is premature at best. VoiceOfReason 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, guidelines are not meant to be a rigid standard for evaluating articles; that is why this entire AfD should never have occured in the first place, as the entire justification for the delete is based solely on supposed non-compliance with a few guidelines and a "crystal ball" prediction that the article could not ever possibly meet policy requirements. -- Y|yukichigai 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, so is this afd ever going to end? Just H 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per arguments in previous AfD. It's a very notable term that has longevity beyond the former Senator and the controversy that it originated from. Disgusting? Yes. Politically charged? Yes. But wikipedia is not censored and AfD is not a battleground for killing off the politically incorrect. Agne 08:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...that has longevity beyond the former Senator and the controversy that it originated from." Says who or what? Your crystal ball? Jinxmchue 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dan Savage. The word is a neologism, and the article provides no evidence that it is "sexual slang" rather than a representation of the controversy which Dan Savage created in protest of Rick Santorum's statements. My personal rule of thumb is that if people feel the need to popularize a word, then said word is still a neologism, and shouldn't have its own article here. In the absence of Dan Savage's efforts to popularize the word in a political context, rather than a common use context, this word would be completely non-existent except as a surname. The information contained in this article would also be better presented on Dan Savage in order to keep it in a NPOV context. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, more of a Request. I would ask those who have voted to keep this article to consider supporting condensing it and merging it with Savage's article. I now think it is not notable enough to deserve its own article, but can be a part of Savage's. Jinxmchue 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'd accept Mike Christie's idea of keeping it under a different title, such as his suggested "Santorum (sexual slang activism)". JamesMLane t c 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am surprised there is even a debate about this article - I never usually intervene in these things nor am I too familiar with the Wikipedia policy regarding the notability of articles but I strongly believe this article should be kept. Strangely enough, as a foreigner studying in North Carolina, I heard several people use the term and I even saw someone wearing a t-shirt with the definition on campus. Only months after having first heard the term did I realize Santorum was in fact a senator in PA, as I am not too familiar with American politics. I know my example is a bit extreme but I think it reflects how much the term has infiltrated subcultures on US campuses and in the LGBT community. I think articles detailing the origin of such terms are exactly what make Wikipedia so unique and interesting - which is why I believe, whether you agree with the term or not, these are quite important to keep. Vincentl 18:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Suggestion - If you could manage to, say, photograph anybody you happen to spot wearing a Santorum T-shirt it would both provide an excellent GFDL picture for the article as well as providing a bit more evidence to support the notability of the article. -- Y|yukichigai 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- appears to be well-cited now, many major media outlet mentions eliminates lack of notability. Don't see why not. Dylan 03:04, 25 December 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four State Area

[edit]
Four State Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As myself and others have noticed on the talk page, the only reference to it on google is the page itself. There are some references on google to a four state area that is a broad region, whose metropolitan center is not Joplin, Missouri. However seeing as how the article is serving basically as the Joplin Metropolitan Area page, and contains nothing in its title to distinguish itself from other four state areas or even to locate it in Missouri, its validity is in question as well as its purpose. Grey Wanderer 00:41, 19 December 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 Samir धर्म 07:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay Hooray

[edit]
Yay Hooray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 00:54, 19 December 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. -- Longhair\talk 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizen Denki Incorporated

[edit]
Kaizen Denki Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable company, was created by Kaizendenki (talk · contribs) (whose username is the same as the title of this article) which I thinkk violates conflict of interests guideline Dylan Lake 01:04, 19 December 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 to delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:12Z

Postscript: I recommend merging to Trekdom#Trekdom & the Internet. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 23:22Z

TrekBBS

[edit]
TrekBBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

First AfD No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Major message board affiliated with a major, non-trivial website (UGO). Frequented by many notable writers (take a look at the contributors to the Trek Literature board`-- one of them is the main editor for Pocket Books. Also affiliated with a major Trek-related`news website, Trek Today. It is discriminatory to exclude a major site simply because it has not won an award or doubles as a magazine. 23skidoo 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When the World of Warcraft english forums with +2 MILLION registered users didn't pass afd (and you have to have a active WoW account to be a registered user), I hardly think that you could argue this site merits a keep based on users. I don't understand how someone can can call this bbs a 'major site' when it just barly has 10,000 users and, yes, we can exclude this 'minor' site simply because it does not pass WP:WEB--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well, I wasn't involved in the AFD debate for the website you mentioned. I would have voted to keep. Please PM me if there happens to be an appeal. Just as I will support any appeal involving the deletion of this article. It totally meets WP:WEB in my opinion. 23skidoo 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Seems non-notable, but really isn't too bad. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк|соήтяївѕ) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, I don't think it matters how special a BBS is thought to be by it's users or if some of it's members are notable. The website in and of itself is not notable and thus fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons brought up by RWR8189. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Not that I can find. It has been mentioned in passing my newspaper articles, but a couple sentances or a mention of the BBS in an article talking about saving the "Enterprise" tv show does not qualify as a valid source.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
a) Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
b) Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • A mention in passing is exactly what the article on the "save enterprise campaign" was, hence...trivial. I was mentioned (actually quoted) in a newspaper article about a local 300 person LAN party. Does that mean I mean WP:BIO and deserve a wikipedia article of my own?
2) The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • No, it has not. Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability. This site has not won any.
3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
  • Again, No it is not.
The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Well it doesn't provide such proof and as far as I can see, does not pass WP:WEB. Those arguing it does, please point out how.

The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

– No, you don't get an article of your own, any more than Bonnie Malmat would. But if you were part of a 6.000 person group that helped start a LAN party that was reported on throughout North America, then yes, maybe that group deserves a mention. TrekBBS was the place where those groups began, where their founders came from, and it's still a place where published and established writers and many other Trek notables have joined and participated, and continue to participate. ElHoserGrande 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good for it! Now please provide proof that it passes WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. I have shown it does NOT pass WP:WEB. It has no verifiable sources so it doesn't pass WP:V...and before anyone says 'but it does!' please READ the ENTIRE WP:V article first. There are no Reliable Sources so it doesn't pass WP:RS. Again...concider the World of Warcraft forums. 2 million registered, active users. No article. Concider the Sci-Fi channel's boards where the writers, directors, and actors post and talk with fans. No article because it doesn't pass wikipedia's standards for inclusion. As it stands the article provides no sources, no proof it passes the fore-mentioned rules/guidelines and no reason it should be kept. BTW: if we even would suggest that the newpaper interview was a vaild source (which it is not) that is only one source. WP:V requires multiple non-trivial sources reporting on the subject (the bbs board itself) and normally most admins set a bar to a minumum of three sources. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom FirefoxMan 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep maybe it doesn't pass WP:WEB but these rules aren't intended to be binding to every single case; clearly a notable website and a worthy article. Thedreamdied 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The burden of proof is on those who advocate retaining this article, not on those trying to ditch it. Proponents of keeping this article have yet to provide any affirming evidence that TrekBBS meets the notability standards, in particular an independent source making significant reference to/commentary upon the site. So far, the strongest contention I've seen for notability is the TrekBBS-UGO connection, i.e. #3 under WP:WEB: site is published by well known folks independent from site's creators. Is UGO well known? --EEMeltonIV 00:21, 25 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:11Z

Chuck E. Chaos

[edit]
Chuck E. Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion by 67.86.149.41. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was the one who nominated it for deletion and because I'm anonymous, it would not let me put a reason for deletion.67.86.149.41 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That fact about him being the first Aussie indy wrestler to appear on PPV doesn't really have much merit in terms of notablity behind it. As much as I want to keep this article around (because he's a well known Aussie wrestler) that fact is fairly pointless and I'd doubt whether it's true or not. Normy132 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional - nomination made by a banned sockpuppet known for attacking non American wrestling entries. Curse of Fenric 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd be all for a speedy keep on account of this alone. Do any admins concur with this? --Dennisthe2 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The word "notable", at Wikipedia, means nothing more nor less than "there exist sufficient reliable sources to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about this topic." His being the first to do this or that might make him significant, in some sense, but that doesn't help us unless it's published somewhere. The only correct way to argue "notability" is to cite sources. This idea that, because we don't have much on Australian wrestling, we can apply IAR and ignore Verifiability.... I don't think you'll find there's consensus for this idea, but rather that it flies in the face of Wikipedia's basic mission, which is to provide verifiable information on every topic for which that is possible. Our No original research policy is non-negotiable. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bacchus, may I suggest you look again at the article? And where is the original research? I never made any such argument after I discovered WP:IAR - which BTW supports WP's basic mission. I am seeking flexibility on notability and verifiability due to local conditions. Not an open slather on original research! Curse of Fenric 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I neither voted delete nor made any claim about this article, did I? I simply suggested that ivoking WP:IAR to bypass WP:NOR or WP:V - even in special cases - is a bad argument, without consensus support. I haven't looked at this article; I'm just saying that IF it should be kept, it'll be because of sources, and not for any other reason. You said, "WP:IAR also applies in this case due to the limited size of the Australian database." That is not a good argument, and I suggest you'll have more success arguing from sources than claiming that anything justifies going without them. If "flexibility on verifiability" means anything other than going without sources, you've yet to make that clear. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bacchus if you'll just look at the article and see what I've done with the notes, you'll have a better idea of what I'm talking about with "flexibility of verifiability". The original line as I understood it was that sources had to be online. My point is - and always was - in Australia that's not always possible. Hence, if anyone tries to say "if it's not online it fails verifiability", that's when I'll apply WP:IAR. I hope that makes things clearer for you. Curse of Fenric 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you got the impression that sources have to be online to count towards verifiability. Where did you hear that? It doesn't say it in WP:V, and I don't believe I've heard it claimed. We just want information that's been published by independent sources; they don't have to have a website. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent)It was one of Booyaka's key argument points, and the lack of objection at the time led me to believe it to be the case. OK, Booyaka's completely unreliable when it comes to policy (which is why I wish I'd known about WP:IAR at the time) but the lack of reaction to his hard and fast view re proof was not helpful. [[User:Curse of Fenric/sig]] 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how you're finding IAR relevant here. There's no rule that says print sources are bad, so I'm not sure what you're wanting to ignore. The best way to know what WP:V and WP:NOR say is not to take Booyaka's word for it, or mine, but to read them. Anyway, I'm glad we seem to be coming to an understanding, and I'm sorry it took so long to work out why we were disagreeing. I didn't see Booyaka saying sources needed to be online, or I would have said something sooner. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always said WP:V and WP:NOR are too vague and are open to interpretation. That's why Booyaka's translation AND the lack of reaction to it upset me. Hence the fact that I would have applied WP:IAR at the time if I'd known about it. Because he was applying those two in a certain way (which you've said is not correct but that's beside the point I'm making) and it was stopping me from protecting what I felt was perfectly good info. To apply a standard like "online only" made it impossible to maintain Wikipedia's standards - hence the WP:IAR policy. Hope that makes it's relevance clearer. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

The article has been updated with sources. Curse of Fenric 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How? Curse of Fenric 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're telling me what's there isn't enough? I'm sorry, but what more do you want? I believe I have more than proved notability with what I have updated the article with. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 04:41, 26 December 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 Cbrown1023. MER-C 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Keka

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twilight (novel) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:07Z

Edward Cullen

[edit]
Edward Cullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is mostly a summary of what happens in both Twilight and New Moon. It is poorly written and structured, and has no proper editing that is usually seen on Wikipedia. Disinclination 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, better to start from scratch. This is apparently an "article" about a fictional character that appears in two novels, and its only content is a summary of that fiction with no real world facts. In this form, it's merely a copyright violation, as the academic context of real world description and commentary is what allows us to make a fair use claim to summarize fiction. It would have to be completely rewritten to be acceptable. Perhaps more to the point, the two articles on the two novels are already in an encyclopedic format and contain summaries of their stories. This is therefore completely useless and redundant. Postdlf 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can be cleaned up and set on track. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. MER-C 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Relevant content is present in articles, whcih do not even link to this article. Character is not separately notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Originally, the article was a redirect to Edward Peter Cullen, a bishop who has nothing to do with the current subject. I don't know how things like this would work, but could the page be kept for that purpose, at least? Salmar 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate people editing the article, but its really making it alot worse. The article SHOULD look like a fictional character 'biography' (if thats even the correct word to use), I would do it, but I have little experience in doing such things. If someone wants to try and tackle this article, take a look at Harry Potter (character) or any of the HP character articles. Those are well done, and what an article like Edward Cullen should look like. I love Stephenie Meyer's series, and this article does not do it justice. Disinclination 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Fledgeling 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ironosora I created a much different article when I first wrote it. People have changed it so much that I think its gotten a bit ridiculous. The article should be more like the Harry Potter one, but to make it that detailed I'll need more people to help and fewer people to change the content that drastically. None of my actual original writing has even been left there. I think that the actual content should be deleted, but the article itself should remain. If there's anyone out there to help me make a better one, message me and we can make a truly worthy article. I felt it necessary to give him his own article as he is such a fascinating character. So, message me if you want to make this work.
  • Keep CrazyDaisy1444 I think that with some editing and cleaning up, this article could work. It's not just a summary of Twilight and New Moon, since it includes outside information about the character's past and family that is not included in the novels. I agree that it should look like a fictional character biography, like the Harry Potter articles, and I don't think that this article should be deleted yet.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nineteen Eighty-Four. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:35Z

We've Always Been At War With Eurasia

[edit]
We've Always Been At War With Eurasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

DictDef, unsourced, so short should be in 1984 if it is not already. Contested prod. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:19, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn's Law

[edit]
Quinn's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

minor non-notable variation of Godwin's law A Ramachandran 02:20, 19 December 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 withdrawn, will re-nominate individually. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:24Z

New Testament Baptist Church, Dade Christian School, The Master's Academy

[edit]
New Testament Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dade Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Master's Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable church/school. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 02:38Z

I would like to ask everyone participating in this discussion to explain their reasonings and spell out what you want to do with each article individually. The articles are sufficiently different for a mass decision to be inappropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage Blender

[edit]
Carnage Blender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable web game, no references or write-ups other than listings on MMORPG collection sites Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 03:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the above

Only if they're from professional reviewers. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 19 December 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 as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Balloon (film)

[edit]
Have a Balloon (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable film, appears to be an indy film Dennisthe2 03:14, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:05Z

Craig Lamb

[edit]
Craig Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these sources to the article! They don't have to be electronic but they have to be there.--Dmz5 17:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sportsperson ranked first in their field who played international matches not notable? Please explain how you come to that conclusion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, he is ranked 237th in the world. None of those ranked 1-236. appear to have Wikipedia biographies. If Paddle tennis is such a minor sport, then participation at an international tournament hardly justitifies stand-alone article on this player. More information about notability of this sport is needed. Julius Sahara 12:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being totally notable in a totally obscure field is a weird thing to be. Ford MF 10:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Worldwide, he may be 237th, but he's best in Canada. As far as I could figure out, he's playing the variant of paddle tennis that's also called padel. The variant invented in 1969, not the variant invented in 1898. Padel doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, but it's quite possible it should. They seem to have professional leagues in Spain and Argentine, possibly Mexico, but alas, I cannot read Spanish. I'd really prefer the article about padel to be made first. Secateur 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, Wikipedia does have its own Wikipedia article, but it's called padel tennis. That article has problems of its own, but it seems like padel tennis is a huge thing in Spain and Argentine. I'll leave that to editors fluent in Spanish. I found some international ranking at http://www.padelfip.com/rankingM2.html which ranks him as 114th in a 33-way tie, together with three other Canadians. And, by the way, this article is about the Canadian padel player, not the Scottish badminton player with the same name.Secateur 01:04, 21 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randomosity comedy

[edit]
Randomosity comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, unsourced, neologistic title. Examples section is a relatively innocuous form of OR. Also, not funny. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis 04:08, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:23Z

Betagarri

[edit]
Betagarri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This band appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Mil A Gritos does not appear to be a notable indie label, but I'm not exactly an expert on the Spanish indie scene. ShadowHalo 04:08, 19 December 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. So many people want to see this improved... I hope someone is willing to do the work before it gets re-AFDed. ---J.S (T/C) 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view of the Bible

[edit]
Islamic view of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

this article is all subheadings, has no content, no reliable sources, for that matter no sources at all, and is all origional research. In addition, it is poorly written and heavily one sided.--Sefringle 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it, stubify if necesary, but don't waste the afd resources. --Striver 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough verifiable material for a non-expert to create a stub. An expert should fix this or the article should be deleted or (possibly) merged. --Folantin 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, read this: Islam in the Bible by Thomas McElwain, its online to read. --Striver 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow, i just noticed, i got a message from regarding this. It was a misstake that i was not aware of, probably since i updated my watchlist and took some time to get to this vote, so some other people most have vote in between, and i didn't notice the warning of me editing an old version. Sorry, it wasn't intentional.--Striver 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please see Category:Christian viewpoints. If sub-sections are needed, then we will add them. --Striver 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that there are other articles with this problem so we should keep all articles with that problem? If you feel those are breaknig policy you should put them up for AfD, and if you do, please leave a message on my talk page. You still have not addressed my point btw. --NuclearZer0 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am arguing that articles that go in depth on a subject from the views of a large religion has a solid precedences, thus, there is no problem per see with this sort of article as somebody implied. Now, if this article contains OR or something else, then edit it out or fix it or source it or whatever, we don't delete an entire encyclopedic topic due to some editorial issues. I just gave the name of a book that is more or less entirely about this subject, so spend the time building the encyclopedia, read the book and add references, or if you can't be bothered, just add the book title as reference. --Striver 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been aware of the problems with this article for at least twelve months now. Very little has been done to fix those problems. Please don't expect newcomers to deal with the mess if you can't be bothered to salvage the page. This is a terrible article with unresolved POV, OR and verifiability issues. Those who want it kept should do something to show it's worth preserving. --Folantin 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV? Could you give me an example of POV statment in it? Again, have you even read the book? If no, then how come you know for sure it's OR? At least addmit you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, i did not work on the article, and neither did you. Again, if any part of the article is problem... wtf, ill just cut most of it and lets see what you can complain about after that. --Striver 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happier? --Striver 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are using 1 source to write an article on all Islams view of the bible? That doesnt strike you as a PoV problem when the entire article is written from the view of that one author? You havent addressed the original point again, how can an article attempt to list the views of "Islam on the bible", when there are so many different sects, groups, extreme views, individual beliefs etc. The religion itself cannot have a view on a different religious text, unless it says it in the Quran, and the entire Quran is accepted by all Islam to the same degree, then its inherently PoV. --NuclearZer0 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just write an article on the book? --NuclearZer0 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep , Its informative and keep it as per Striver explaination. Mak82hyd 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate from scratch at a later stage. While the TOPIC is clearly meritable and deserves a good article, this article in its current form isn't it. It fails a few core policies, viz. WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The reason I'm going for "Delete" instead of just "Keep and Rewrite" is that the material currently in the article does not form the basis for a good stub or as content that can be expanded upon to become a Featured, or even a Good Article. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Folantin, Moreschi.Proabivouac 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recall an article along the lines of Atheists' view of Jesus - which makes as much sense as Left-handed bus drivers' view of cowboy hats. Atheists as a group don't have a organized views of each religious figure. Individual atheists might have personal opinions but portraying that as an organized view is WP:OR at best. Does Islam have an organized view of the Bible? The article currently has two sources; any evidence that those are Islam's view as opposed to the views of the authors of the articles? Surely if a group of 1.4 billion people has an organized view it is widely documented in a large number of reliable sources that largely agree with each other. This would be the difference between delete and rewrite. Weregerbil 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, it is possible to talk of a general orthodox "Islamic view of the Bible", so I don't think NuclearZero's worries are particularly well-founded. Muslim scholars have been engaging with their Christian and Jewish counterparts in controversies about the Bible and the Koran since the Middle Ages. If the views of certain Islamic sects diverge from mainstream Muslim theological opinion on this issue, it should be possible to cover them too. But I agree with Zunaid that this article should be deleted and recreated from scratch when someone turns up who is willing to put the effort in to write a decent page (ideally using reputable scholarly sources - e.g. the Encyclopaedia of Islam?). As it stands, there's not much to save here.--Folantin 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs cleanup, but this one's definitely a keeper. Ford MF 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Wikipidian 02:43, 22 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:22Z

Capdown

[edit]
Capdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The band has released albums on Household Name Records, whose article calls it "one of the UK's best known independent punk rock record labels" but is unreferenced. ShadowHalo 04:25, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orc Gladiators

[edit]
Orc Gladiators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, user-created map for a video game. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Chovain 04:27, 19 December 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, default keep as stub. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:04Z

Vera von Blumenthal

[edit]
Vera von Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed, the article has been heavily revised. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl

[edit]
Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. The content of this tale supposedly attributed to Postclassic Aztec mythology is unverified, and does not seem to be accounted for in any of the standard primary/secondary sources. At best, this could be merely a modern invention/interpretation, of the tour-guide variety. Without substantiation as a genuine mythological account, merits deletion. cjllw | TALK 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've heard this legend before, and I'm sure reliable sources can be found (try using the names "Izta" and "Popo"). —ShadowHalo 05:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Delete if no sources are found, keep if sources are found. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк|соήтяївѕ) 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article is verified with reliable sources during this AFD period. Terence Ong 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles creator seems to have quite a few edits under his belt, especially in this arena. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote for delete unless this article can be realiably sourced. wtfunkymonkey 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've totally revamped and properly sourced this article/Keep The problem with legends and myths, especially from lost cultures, is there may be no authoritative version of them. In this case, there seem to be at least several variations out there. To keep things simple, I've mainly based the article on a version used in a Smithsonian Institution exhibition in September 2006 - if it's good enough for the Smithsonian, should be okay for Wikipedia - and also noted that this is just one version. Bwithh 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after a complete rewrite with reliable sources. Just needs even further expansion asap. Terence Ong 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nice work on the sourcing and rewrite, Bwithh. On the face of the information it still however does seem to me to be a legend or tale of more contemporary provenance, than something which is explicitly documented for the pre-Columbian Aztec. A pity the exhibition and those guidebooks don't seem to say anything more than "according to legend". So perhaps the article could be recategorised/annotated as a more general/recent legend, but anyways granted that there are sufficient references to these particular versions.--cjllw | TALK 08:19,

19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep As long as the story is called "mexican folklore" and not "aztec mythology" I don't have a problem with it. It certainly is well known both in Mexico and in guidebooks. I have asked a wide forum of nahuatl specialists and while all of them know the story and some of them know it from modern nahuatl communities none of them know anything that might suggest a precolumbian origin of the story. Like CJLLW I really hink that this is a postcolonial piece of folklore. Maunus 10:54, 19 December 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 to delete, esp. after the news article was found. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:19Z

Fandangle

[edit]
Fandangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article claims that the band toured the UK five times, but there is no reference to support that. ShadowHalo 04:59, 19 December 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; keep for now but revisit later. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:03Z

Laurence M. Vance

[edit]
Laurence M. Vance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reason DGG 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason got omitted, so I add: Non notable author. Writer of several books, but with almost no reviews, none for most of them--and none at all in mainstream media. Ditto for video interview. Article pushes POV of the subject. I realize this is not an autobio, but it certainly reads like one. If non-verifiable material were removed, if there would be nothing left. Listed for prod, but tag removed.

Keep First, let me state that I removed the tag and was in the process of adding sources when you nommed this article here. That is perfectly fine, but I wanted to make sure you and the other editors understand that my removal of the prod tag wasn't in bad faith. It was just my first step in working to add sources and clean-up the article, as per the tag's instructions. With that stated, I would note the following about DGG's edit summaries' claims and those he notes above in the nomination:

  • On notability: Vance's work has been published in either electronic or hardcopy format by LewRockwell.com, Antiwar.com, Mises.org, IHS Press, and Foundation for Economic Education. Notability here may be drawn from the fact that he has been published in numerous sources which have thus far been deemed by the community to be notable.
  • On POV-pushing: I certainly share many of Vance's views, but I wear them on my sleeve and try to comply with WP:NPOV. Now, I am not sure which parts DGG considers to be in non-compliance because DGG has not discussed them on the talk page or corrected them himself. I would invite other editors to determine whether the verbiage constitutes POV-pushing.
  • On vanity: I am not and have never been Laurence Vance, nor have I been asked by Vance to write/edit this article. I believe that other editors will vouch for the fact that I exist!
DickClarkMises 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought you were, nor that you had been asked to write it. Just that he was presented in a way that is normally associated with vanity. An uncritical admirer often does that, even without intending to. DGG 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DGG: Again, I am not claiming to be perfect. I think every contributor's work, including my own, can be improved by input from others. If you think the style of the text is in conflict with WP:NPOV or some other Wikipedia policy, please make it compliant. Thus far, I'm still not sure of the specific problems that you are seeing, and without specific examples it is hard to make things better. I'm also not sure that simple NPOV compliance issues are germane to an AfD, especially since you seem to indicate that you don't believe I am acting in bad faith. I suppose you won't want to do this till after this current AfD finishes out, but if the article is kept I hope you'll collaborate with myself and others on the article talk page to make the article better. DickClarkMises 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Dick is doing wrong here, the subject has some external currency and appears to be getting better sourced with each edit, so I'll go with a weak keep for now, revisit in a month or so to see a more settled version. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Lexis/Nexis has a few hits for him, but they almost admit "this guy means nothing." For example, the following, from a wire service called Inter Press Service that I had never heard of before, in September,
"Laurence M. Vance, a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Fla., wrote in a recent commentary posted at LewRockwell.com...."
He seems to have made about as big an impact on the print press as, say, a local realtor. Uucp 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what in that statement "almost admits" that "this guy means nothing"? It is common for editorials to give information about the author (i.e. "the author is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution and was U.S. Secretary of State from 1971 to 1977."). Oh yeah, Keep per Dick and the publications he lists. Allon Fambrizzi 02:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Since when is being an "adjunct instructor in accounting and economics" notable? If that's the best credit the paper can give you, you don't deserve a wikipedia article. Uucp 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article to suggest that this person satisfies notability requirements. Meghann 05:19, 23 December 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, this is quite enough of SPAs only editing to say to delete this. If it isn't quite WP:POINT, it's close enough. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notpron

[edit]
Notpron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Because weffriddles got deleted so u might as well delete this as well Jimeie 05:31, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:00Z

Solus Christi Brothers

[edit]
Solus Christi Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a religious organisation. Couldn't find anything reliable on Google. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep but only if references can be found. It does indeed seem like a first edit, and perhaps something could be done with it in the next few day.DGG 23:52, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeb Mall

[edit]
Deeb Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article fails to state why it is notable. There is also no references nor citations Meno25 05:51, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Mall

[edit]
Mina Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article fails to state why it is notable. There is also no citations nor references Meno25 05:53, 19 December 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 Unambiguous delete of personal essay, amazing it's been around as long as it has. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Shoestring

[edit]
Operation Shoestring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is a personal essay/anecdote that has remained unedited since its creation a year ago. Falls under guidelines in WP:NOT. Cla68 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Helen Alice Kinnear. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:55Z

Kinnear House

[edit]
Kinnear House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The judge may be noteworthy; I don't think her house is. Akihabara 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to an article on the judge. Nothing notable about her house. Edison 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. According to the article, the house is conserved as a noteworthy local property, so it can be expanded to include more information about the history of the house and details of the conservation, such as (maybe) why it is conserved and what has been done to the house since it was added to the database for conservation. Thaurisil 07:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:53Z

Ace & TJ Show

[edit]
Ace & TJ Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm not quite sure what makes a radio program notable or not, so I don't have any policy to go on here. Truthfully, it looks to me like advertising especially considering phrases like "wildly popular". I'll abstain as I don't know what the official policy on this type of thing is. Brad Beattie (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is from the talk page:

this seems like an accurate discription of the show, how else would you suggest to fix this problem? Ryn2me 14:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

also 'wildly popular' would be an accurate discription, seeing as they lead the ratings in the markets in which they broadcast Ryn2me

is the advertising tag going to be addressed or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryn2me (talk • contribs).

  • Yep, I just came back to look at the talk page now. Generally, adverbs indicate a non-POV article. "Wildly popular" would be better served by actually stating the specific numbers. I'm going to try and hunt down the notability requirements for a radio show. I'll reply here within 24 hours as to what I've found. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

also...i think you missed a step with nominating the article, you did not notify me like you were supposed to, since i am the creator Ryn2me 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i think this is a good quality article that should remain and just should be edited to make it better Ryn2me 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

keep Ryn2me 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted then you should look at deleting all other syndicated radio shows and even look at TV shows because, seeing as how having something that is broadcast across such a large market doesn't make it notable and having formed a nationally recognized charitee, then what will Ryn2me 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ace_%26_TJ_Show"

This article had been on the deletion agenda for more than five days...if this problem isnt resolved soon i will send messages to all of the administrators since it isn't being treated fairly and should be removed as an AfD articleRyn2me 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - syndicated radio program. Multiple award nominations (but where are the refs?). It's notable in my book. Chovain 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I am not convinced on the notability issue as the syndication is, currently, 8 local markets - clearly Ace & TJ are not in the same league as Howard Stern. The article itself is very weak and reads more like advertising copy than a serious enycylopaedic srticle. Hmmm... Eddie.willers 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote this article as best I could being a listener to the show...I present facts from the show, controversies that have surrounded the show and connections to other articles. I can try to fix it as best I can and, if someone wants to actually edit it like what Wikipedia is meant for, they can do that for. Also, if you want to take a look at other radio show articles, like Bob and Tom, they are not much different from this one. Ryn2me 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable and the total lack of sources means that no notability has been established nor has the show even really been verified. Unless good, reliable third party sources are given that show that this is, in fact, notable then this should go. --The Way 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability criteris (and possibly WP:V). Article does not cite "multiple third-party reliable sources" indicating its notability or verifying its content. (It also still comes across as self-promotional and filled with cruft e.g. "gags", although this can be cured by editing.) Without external ref's this article should go. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this article has been on the agenda for more than five days, seven to be exact...making it two weeks, that is very unfair for an article...a decision on the article should be reached within 24 hours or i will write all of the top ranking members of wikipedia Ryn2me 01:29, 27 December 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. Punkmorten 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fingies

[edit]
The Fingies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article about a Russian rock band. Fails all criteria in WP:MUSIC. No independent refererences. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 19 December 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. Punkmorten 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimara Sajn

[edit]
Kimara Sajn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable Akihabara 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per extreme non-notability. 30 unique Ghits, nothing interesting. "Due to a mysterious allergic reaction to the music business, Sajn produces (formerly) Cassette Tapes and (currently) Audio CDs in small quantities and delivers them to whomever he chooses when he feels like it." = self-published artist. Not a thing on Amazon. "Polythene pet" scores only the wiki article. Ohconfucius 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 19 December 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. Renaming may be appropriate; please discuss at Talk:11:11 phenomenon. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:52Z

11:11 phenomenon

[edit]
11:11 phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'm nominating this material because I think that it is original research. The exact same material was added to the 11:11 article a day or two ago, and I removed it for the same reason. I offered to discuss my reasoning with the editor who created it, to see if we could reach a consensus, but no reply came. So I am bringing it to afd, to reach consensus. The original 11:11 article is in the state it is in, because of several afd's also. Basically my reasons are as follows:

  1. The use of the word "phenomenon" in the title and throughout the article is inaccurate and misleading. What this article purports to describe is a belief held by some people that there exists a causal relationship between the number 1111 or the time of day 11:11 am or pm and events in the world. For this to belief to be even considered a phenomenon, we would have to include material from reputable journals in which investigators were performing experiments to determine whether or not the relationship exists and its nature. No such sources were cited in this article to lend creedence to this causal relationship.
I provided no sources because there are none. I don't believe that there is a link between the number 11:11 and anything in nature. What I have observed (and provided many cites for) is that many people *do* believe that there is something special about 11:11, many notable people have claimed as such, and thus the claim itself has become notable enough to warrant it's inclusion. I noticed you deleted the list to songs and albums entitled 11:11, did you do that because you honestly believe it's some big cosmic coincidence that people are entitling these things "11:11". Wouldn't that be funny if you did? Basically you'd be admitting to the fact that YOU see 11:11 everywhere!
That does not necessarily follow. I deleted the list because it already existed on 11:11 and I saw no reason to include it in this related article. My personal beliefs about numerology, numbers or this number in particular are not relevant to the discussion. As you say, "I have observed..." but you have not published your observations in a reputable source, and that's one of the reasons why I think this is original research.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That there is a seperate list on a seperate article does not preclude the information from being included in this article. (Of course I think the articles should be outright merged!) I put the list in in an unbiased manner by using a qualifying word "may". I don't think it is unfair to allow the reader to at least speculate that there is a connection between more than eight songs, albums, and movies named "11:11" and this (perhaps totally unrelated thing) people just happen to know as "11:11". I don't see how you can disallow the information to co-mingle on the same page unless you honestly believe that there isn't a reasonable chance the two might be related. If there is such a chance then I think we have a responsibility to craft and article that at least presents that information together. -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the usage of the word "phenomenon", and I am quite open to the idea of that part of the article being changed. In fact I think this content should simply be included in the 11:11 article. I see no point in having two articles since the "phenomenon" or whatever you want to call it is almost always simply refered to as "11:11". Instead of deleting the content outright maybe you could take a moment to edit the content to make it better. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again why I don't work to improve this article is not relevant to this discussion. However, I will simply say that I don't because this is not an issue of quality but whether or not the material is original research. If I can I try to help with articles that I feel I can improve, but I feel no obligation to improve articles that are o.r since WP:NOR is one of the pillars of wikipedia. I have endeavored to make it very clear that is my only reason for nominating this article. I outlined all these reasons simply to make my reasoning clear and impersonal.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article claims that George Noory popularized this belief. Since popularize can mean either to make popular, or to explain in a simple manner, the article needs to cite sources and expand and clarify the statement. The only other statement regarding Noory, is that some people appeared on his show, to discuss their belief. There are 3 links given as references for that. 2 are brief blurbs that do not mention a specific person or persons. The third is a brief announcement about an upcoming show. The material on that does not really explain the person's beliefs. It's my opinion that nothing in the article supports the claim about Noory, so the claim is original research.
My appologies. The content actually being cited is the radio programme itself. The interviews on the show are quite long and in-depth, usually about three hours long. If the citation needs to be done differently to refelct that it is the content of the program itself, and not the website being linked to, then so be it. I just figured it was obvious in this case. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What seems obvious to me is that Noory has had one or two people on his show to talk about their beliefs. To me, this does not support the claim that he "popularized" the belief. I need to see more links, from someone other than noory before I can understand how this conclusion was arrived at.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it still seems like a lot to me, considering the plethora of other subjects that are given a three-hour spotlight on this or that night. I mean if it were two articles in the Washington Post, those would be okay to cite. But being featured on a radio show that is listened to more people than any other in that time slot, that doesn't rank. I wouldn't argue that the source is reputable, but I do believe the source is quite notable and that in turn makes the subject notable, and I believe that is enough to warrant it's inclusion in wikipedia. -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Another sentence reads "Another common claim...". This sentence is another assertion that is not supported by anything else in the article. The sentence then points to a self published website (the link is broken) that is very confusing and simply seems to represent one person's belief. Since the website appears self-published and has probably not been peer reviewed or fact checked, it probably does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for reputable sources. It's the equivalent of adding the following line to Black cat. "Joe somebody, from Anywhere, USA, believes that black cats bring bad luck, and said so on his website.
I can see your point on this and I would not protest if this information were removed. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is a claim of a movie coming out in 2009, but no source is given.
I will add a link to the imdb listing. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. This would make a good addition to the disambiguation page.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Uri Geller seems to be used as some sort of expert on the subject. Although why Uri Geller is considered an expert on what people do and do not believe regarding 11:11 is not made clear. I visited this link, and I believe the statement is incorrect. The only thing Uri Geller says about September 11 is "I believe that those who died on September 11th did not die in vain." The sentence is an inaccurate representation (and confusing) of the material on that page.
Uri Geller is a notable person making an extraordinary claim. That he is notable doesn't make him an expert, obviously, but it does give creedence that the belief in "11:11" is itself becoming more notable. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. I do think that the sentence in the article, did not summarize the material accurately, but that's just my opinion (as is everything else I have expressed).TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The use of the word skeptic in the last line is both non neutral and misleading. Since the article is primarily talking about a belief that people might share, then there are only people who believe and people who don't. Only in the context of discussing a theory that has been proposed and/or tested is the word skeptic meaningful. So the last line only really describes one possible reason why some people might not believe, and ignores all the other reasons why people might not believe.
"Eleven Eleven" is without a doubt a theory that has been proposed many times by some fairly notable people, but it has never been tested (how could it be?). I think the word "skeptic" can be used in this case, and if not then I invite you to change it. And why don't you add more reasons people don't believe instead of complaining about the lack of reasons? That an article is missing some information doesn't make it a candidate for deletion, it simply makes it a stub. This section is something I would like to expand, and at the time I had intended to include a link to comment James Randi had made on the subject but at the time I could not find that information. -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the rub for me. There is a difference between belief and theory. I think that editors in an encyclopedia should be very careful about their wording. To me, a theory is an explanation that I develop about a phenomenon that I can observe, repeat and reproduce. I develop a theory, to explain why the phenomenon that I observed happened the way it did. A theory is then something that I can design tests to disprove. If I can disprove my theory, I go onto another one. A belief is slightly different. A belief is an explanation for a phenomenon that I (or anyone else) might never have actually observed but I may consider to be within the realm of possibility. As an example, let's say I chose a large sample of songs from all of the songs ever written. I then analyzed those songs to determine the frequency with which those lyrics or titles included a number or numbers. Further suppose that as a result of my calculations I concluded that the number 1111 occurred more frequently than any other number to such an extent that made it statistically abnormal. Now I've observed something. I now develope theories to explain it. I could develop theories that would be impossible to test (cosmic rays caused the anomaly) to relatively easy to test (my sample was biased). My long point, I gathered data, and then developed theories. As an example of a belief, as a kid I believed in the Loch Ness monster. I had never seen it, never been to Scotland, never met anyone who had encountered the creature. The only "evidence" I had were fuzzy photographs and stories that would now be called urban legends. I still held out the possibility that the lake might contain a creature. My belief was not a theory. If you read this far, good for you.TheRingess 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the above reasons, I believe that this article should be deleted is not ready for the article namespace. TheRingess 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Plenty of paranormal concepts have articles. This article needs a serious rework for NPOV, but it is covered and discussed enough outside WP to be notable IMO. I seem to remember seeing a policy or guideline on handling paranormal topics somewhere. Does anyone know where it is? Chovain 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, miserable number of google hits[17].This theory merits a mention on the Uri Geller article, but we can't have an article on every single thing he believes.--Nydas(Talk) 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who called it "phenomenon", not everyone uses the word "phenomenon" when talking about 11:11, and thus your search should reflect as much. Considering that, your search resulted in quite a lot of hits! -- GIR 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge to Uri Geller, they are only tangentially related --Dmz5 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not like it's 2112, after all. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly needs a lot of work, but I think it's noteworthy how many people have some belief in this. For example, last year there was a local controversy in Knoxville, Tennessee when the area manager for Knology wrote some letters to the editor about his beliefs on the subject, which eventually resulted in an interview with him by a Knoxville News Sentinel columnist (the original seems to be broken on the knoxnews.com website, but that's a copy of it), and finally his being fired by Knology for the negative publicity. I've found other non-local websites (on conspiracy theories, freedom of speech, religion, etc.) that picked up on this ([www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520667/posts] and [18], in addition to the above site with the copy of the interview). Also, a quick google for 11:11 turned up a number of pages devoted to the phenomenon: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. All that, plus the long page by Uri Geller on the subject and the mentions on Coast to Coast (both prime sources for those inclined to such beliefs), makes me think that this is at least as significant as a lot of other paranormal theories we have pages for. (No, I'm not a conspiracy type myself, and I think this is probably is a case of confirmation bias, but it's something that seems sufficiently notable to warrant a page.) Pinball22 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a brief look at the links regarding this topic, they all seem to me to be self-published websites. I don't think that they would meet wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Regarding controversis, if there has been a well publicized controversy, in reputable sources, regarding someone's belief in this synchronicity, then yes, that might make a notable article. Once again, Uri Geller seems only tangentially related to this topic. His views on it are only his own. I think the current material in this article mischaracterizes his statements and belief. I scanned the material on his website and believe that the one line summary presented here is inaccurate, confusing and misleading. It might be better to simply have a list of famous people who share this belief. Relevant links that might be useful for this article would be ones that supply information on when/where the beliefs originated; how widespread they are; different variations on the beliefs, etc. In which case, the article might be better titled "Beliefs regarding 1111". My main point, is that this article is non neutral and inaccurate in that it is presenting people's beliefs as actual verified facts. TheRingess 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just meant the websites to be evidence that there are a fair number of people who believe it, not reliable sources for evidence of its truth. I envision the article as a description of the idea, with, as you said, explanations about its history, variations on the idea, and notable believers, just like any article about a non-provable concept. (Links to such sites are probably thus relevant, not as sources for the factuality of the concept, but as examples of the belief in it -- the Catholicism article has a link to the Vatican's web page, but obviously the article doesn't attempt to present Papal infallibility as a fact). Clearly the 11:11 article is in need of a lot of work to make it an objective description of the concept and beliefs on the subject, but I think much of what's discussed is relevant (for example, the fact that Uri Geller has a page about it is significant, since he's famous because of his belief in paranormal phenomena), just in need of being expanded, better presented, and documented. This is an AfD discussion, though, so the important question is not whether the current article is good, but whether there should be an article about this in the Wikipedia; based on the reasons I originally listed, I think there definitely should be, though clearly it should be tagged for cleanup. Pinball22 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the reply. I'm not convinced that a few self published websites indicate that a fair number of people believe in it, that's an assertion that needs to be addressed. I also am not sure I agree that an afd has to be concerned with whether or not a topic should or should not exist on Wikipedia. That kind of discussion seems more appropriate on the pages that deal with requests for article. But I could be wrong, if you know of any policy discussions that would help make it clearer to me, please feel free to leave the links here or on my talk page. The current debate is about this article. According to the criteria for deletion, original research is a valid criteria for deletion. One of the problems I see, is that if the article remains, and interested editors place the appropriate citation and cleanup tags on it, there is no guarantees that the article will actually be cleaned up. Unless, we are going to place the burden of cleanup on the editors placing the tags, which is ultimately unworkable. Take a look at the backlog of all articles needing wikifying or cleanup. I see nothing wrong with deleting the article as is and if the contributing editor wishes, they can create an article in their user space, clean it up, get help with it. Then when they believe that it satisfies all criteria for inclusion, they can transfer it to the article namespace. This seems to be accepted procedure.TheRingess 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about policy links, I've gone ahead and asked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I really want to know if this is a policy. I wasn't aware of it before, and if it is policy, then I'll keep it in mind in future discussions.TheRingess 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable But not because it is OR--it certainly is not. Assembling mentions from a few websites is not research. Many WP articles are appropriately done that way. OR would be if the editor had set out to determine if the phenomenon does in fact exist and published the results here. DGG 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not to sound too argumentative, but after reading your comment I decided to take a look at WP:OR again. I found the following statement:

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position

. It's simply my opinion that statements like: "George Noory popularized this belief" or "Another common claim..." represent unpublished analyses. In the second phrase, that documents one person's claim the thing that makes it original research is the word common. From the weblink we know the person is a believer, but how are we to determine that amongst all of the believers his viewpoint is common. Perhaps, even amongst it's adherents, this person is considered to be "out there" so to speak. Take away the word "common" and the editor is simply giving one person's opinion, without establishing the notability of that opinion. Also to talk about what "skeptics" might or might not believe, without mentioning who they are and where their viewpoints were published represent unpublished arguments. It's just my opinion, but those statements seem to me to fit the definition of original research. Also to call something a "phenomenon" is to inherently imply that it is something that has been observed, studied and researched.TheRingess 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep. Interesting that 23 should be cited as a similar phenomenon byut not the old cricketer's stand-by of the Nelson (111). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with 11:11, I don't think the "phenomenon" exists, and as such the phenomenon will never be proven to exist. But I do feel that there is a popular belief in the phenomenon, and that is the *only* thing I sought out to prove in the article. Edit: whoops I forgot to sign my vote! sorry! -- GIR 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Let me add a postscript after thinking about this for a while, please give this article another chance, TheRingess. I looked over your history with this subject and I can see why you killed some of the older articles, they really were rubbish and biased towards one side. I really do want to present this issue in an un-biased fashion, but I can not do that if the article is killed before the article is improved by other people, one does not step on a seedling because it bears no fruit. References to obscure (but notable) things take time to collect and accumilate. An article on 11:11 is not to be written in a few days or even a few years. My motivation for writing the article in first place is revealed in the last sentence of the article. As a skeptic, I think it is important to recognize the *facts* of things like this, and there aren't that many facts to be had in a case like 11:11, as so you have a pretty short article, but you have an article nonetheless and those seeking information on the subject are thus better informed on the reality of the subject. Wikipedia is an excellent place for stuff to filter down and distill in to a good chunk of useful information, but sometime that takes time, but you at least have to give it time. In the long run, looking at the history of the article, that people are going to keep making new articles about 11:11 not realising someone else already had. So which is easier? To kill it each time? or to simply maintain a good article on the subject? Anyway, that's all I want to do, write a good article *with* my fellow wikipedians. So, TheRingess, you seem like a very good writer, having read your point-by-point reasons for killing this article, why don't you put some of that talent to improving the article? I mean I don't want to have any bad blood with you since we basically agree on the nature of this "phenomenon" ;) -- GIR 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' No problemo, there was never any bad blood, nor was this ever personal. You are correct, some things take time. This is why many editors create subpages in their user space. They work on them there until they are satisfied that their work will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. They move them into the article namespace. That's a good way to avoid these types of discussions and a good way to avoid having fellow editors question the content, and stick cleanup tags, or wikify tags, or source tags in the article. You can of course clean it up even while this discussion goes on.TheRingess 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite and merge. I was the editor who recreated 11:11 article (its third recreate, I believe) before it was redirected and turned into a disambiguation page. As such, I have read several websites on the so-called "phoenomenon", and while the numerous websites, songs, and other media which reference 11:11 appear to reinforce its validity as a "phoenomenon" (or at least a common experience), I have never found any credible second-hand sources that have discussed the issue. Therefore, I believe that TheRingess is correct in labelling the current article original research. However, I also feel that there is something there that deserves an article - there just aren't enough credible sources there to verify it. Once there are, I would be willing to help improve/work on the article. -ryand 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember that simply reading something and recounting what it says without opinion isn't OR (check WP:OR). In researching a little more about this, it seems that there are several different theories people have as to the meaning of noticing 11:11, including that it's a sign for lightworkers or a message from the Midwayers of The Urantia Book, both things we already have articles about (in the case of the Urantia book, multiple extensive articles). There are also at least two books specifically about 11:11 for sale on Amazon: [24] and [25]. Also notable, I think, is that all but two of the first page of ghits are separate sites devoted to this idea (the other two are the Wikipedia page for November 11th and the IMDB page for the movie 11:11). A search for "John Gilmore" Knology yields several pages of articles about his firing for talking about his beliefs (which, in his case, involve the Illuminati, another topic we have many pages about). It seems to me that this is significant, if for no other reason than its relation to so many different popular paranormal topics. If you want to rename this page to something like "Beliefs about 11:11", or if someone wants to take it into their userspace and work on it based on this information, that's fine, but I'd really like to see it stay as an article to inspire group collaboration. Pinball22 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that we are in basic agreement on many points. I do understand that reading something and recounting it is not OR. One of the basic pillars of Wikipedia is that material added can only be something an editor read in a reputable source. So instead of just saying "Fails WP:NOR" I listed the specific material that I felt was not already published somewhere. (The most notable statement that I believe represents OR is the claim that Noory popularized the phenomenon. I believe that the links cited do not make this claim. Since no source was provided, and a brief search on google turned up no sources for that claim, I feel that it does represent OR). One other simple example was to classify one person's viewpoint as common. Since the beliefs have not been listed, nor clearly defined, it is difficult to establish from the context of the article, whether this person's belief is common, or merely their own. Don't get me started again on why the word phenomenon is inappropriate for this article. To me, the issue in this discussion has never been about whether or not an article about this number should exist. That is simply way beyond the scope of this discussion. The results of any afd do not seem to be permanently binding (nor should they be). It does seem to be a common occurrence on Wikipedia, that as a result of an afd, an article is deleted and interested editors take up its cause, rewrite it to address the concerns expressed in the discussion and then once again move the article into the article namespace. (Excuse me if I am stating the obvious). I have also noticed that articles are often edited while a discussion is ongoing, and as a result of those edits, some editors will change their opinions. I'm actually wondering if we as a community ought to start actively encouraging fellow editors to create articles in their user space, seek peer reviews, and then when ready, put them in article namespace. It's just my observation (hence my own original research) that a lot of articles in the namespace are "rough drafts". I think that in the future when I participate in discussions, I'm going to stop using the words keep and delete and replace them with ready and not ready. I agree that "Beliefs about 11:11" is a much better title. Another title might be "11:11 (numerology)".TheRingess 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ok, this is really getting more involved than I think is necessary, but there are a couple of important points of Wiki-philosophy here. You write, "One of the basic pillars of Wikipedia is that material added can only be something an editor read in a reputable source." This is a more complicated statement than it appears, and goes to the heart of the point I'm trying to make. Let's go back to your black cat example, just for simplicity. There's a drastic difference between the two statements "There is someone who believes that black cats bring bad luck" and "Black cats bring bad luck." For the first, a webpage that says "I'm Joe, and I think black cats bring bad luck" is a a perfectly valid source. It shows that such a person exists, in a way that is verifiable by anyone who reads the primary source, as mentioned in WP:OR. The same webpage, though, is not a valid source for the second statement, since the fact in question in that statement isn't Joe's belief, but a fact about the actual nature of cats and luck, for which Joe isn't known as a reliable source. I think you probably understand, and agree with, this point, but I wanted to be sure that we're on the same page. I agree wholeheartedly that, with the evidence given, the claims that George Noory popularized (in any sense) this concept, or that belief in it is widespread, have not been sufficiently supported. (Support for the second is what I've been trying to provide in my previous posts.) In their current form, these claims may represent original research, in the sense of creating synthesis or opinion from primary sources. However, since they may also simply be inadequately referenced, I don't think claiming use of OR as a basis for an AfD is appropriate. I think the intent (other Wikipedians, feel free to argue) of the listing of OR as a potential reason to delete an article is meant for not this possibly-OR grey area, but for, as is described in WP:OR, egregious OR of the "here is my new theory of gravitation based on the motion of hamsters" type. Hopefully, in cases like this one, the appropriate action is to improve the article, find a basis for any apparent OR, and remove anything that can't be substantiated. If you feel some of the current claims are too vague to remain standing, be bold and remove them. Cut the article down to a stub, put the disputed bits on the talk page, tag for cleanup, and let the Wiki-magic work. Based on something else you've said, I'm inclined to think you agree, in principle, but perhaps are using the wrong means to the end: "To me, the issue in this discussion has never been about whether or not an article about this number should exist. That is simply way beyond the scope of this discussion." Unfortunately, by creating an AfD, the existence of the article is exactly what you've opened a debate about. No, the results of an AfD are generally not permanently binding, but a delete result will certainly cast a shadow on any future version of the article that may be hard to escape. For that reason, I find leaving a stub more appropriate than deletion in any case where people believe a subject may be sufficiently notable for an article, even if the current article is not up to par. In addition, I think people are much more likely to work on a stub article they find than to simply create a new article, so deletion may make it less likely that the article will exist again. As for the idea that articles should be kept in userspace until they meet some standard, that seems to me to go against the entire point of a wiki, which is collaboration. Whether there should be separate levels of "doneness" is of course a much bigger question, but I believe collaborative effort needs to be available at all levels to make articles the best they can be, and in the current Wikipedia model, that means putting them out in the general space as soon as possible. Sorry for the length of this post, and no, I don't think this article is so vital to the Wikipedia that the world will end if it's gone (I do think, based on the research I've done, that it's sufficiently notable, though), but I think the ideas of how things should work that are at question here are pretty important. -- Pinball
        • Comment Thanks for giving a well thought out and courteous response to my thoughts. Yes, we are in agreement on many points. Including that I may have used the wrong means to an end. Now that I look at thoughts regarding notability here; I used inadequate language. I think now that I misunderstood your comments regarding notability. What I really meant to express is that an afd should never be used to determine whether or not a subject (as opposed to an article) is notable enough to belong to wikipedia. This is a good example, a well researched article, with reputable sources, that fits all of the criteria for inclusion, deserves to exist, simply because this is Wikipedia. The argument should never be based upon "how far out" we think a belief or theory is. I do not agree that this process makes it less likely that the article will exist again. But I suppose we simple should agree to disagree. It seems that I misunderstood your original comments. Regarding doneness, it's simply my opinion that a valid process for creating an article is: 1) create the article in your user namespace 2) When you are satisfied (or even before), seek out fellow editors who share your interest (project pages are a great place to start) 3) request peer reviews (it's a good idea to actively seek out reviews rather than wait for someone to volunteer) 4) collaborate and repeat the steps 5) move to article namespace. I am not suggesting that this is the way we have to do things, or the way we should do things, I am simply expressing my own opinion (and this might not be the appropriate place to do so) based on my own OR. I believe that one underlying assumption of the Wikipedia model is that some editors will always step forward to improve an article. I'm not convinced that this is the case, or that it is even a workable assumption. Finally, it boils down to asking editors to actively seek out collaboration, rather than waiting for it to happen. (Take a look at the list of all articles needing wikification. The backlog seems quite large to me). Nor am I suggesting that we actively discourage editors from adding articles to article namespace first and then seeking collaboration. To me, that would be completely against Wiki philosophy. My points are probably better suited for a policy discussion page, or just a general philosophical discussion page, so I apologize for making this discussion lengthier than necessary. If you wish to discuss this further, at this point, our talk pages might be more appropriate venues. Take care.TheRingess 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with Pinball on this one, I say skip to step 5. and get everything out in the open fropm the get-go. There are far too many people who have esoteric knowledge locked up in their head, and when they go and search for something and they find it on wikipedia, they are much more likely share their bit of knowledge with us if they are invited to simply edit an open wikipedia article, rather than some page that is filed away under some user's page. The process you describe relies far too much on the fellow wikipedians. The birth of a new article should be out in the open for everyone to see, the more people that see it, the more people will contribute *good* information to it. This is the whole point of having a stub! Again, Pinball is right on the money with so much of what he said, I'm quite glad really, he said so much of what I want to say, and in such a great way, I don't have to say it, so I can go watch that episode of Torchwood I've been saving up ;) -- GIR 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. sorry I messed up the formatting up top, I didn't notice until now I had turned all the numbers in your numbered lists in to 1's, my god, I see 1111 everywhere!!! ;) just kiddin'[reply]
I edited the article to remove all claims that I felt were at once speculative and not supported by the sources cited. I did not reinstate the list of songs. It is now basically a stub. If it survives, then it should be renamed to "Beliefs about 11:11" or "1111 (numerology)". Take care. Now I can go back to catching up on my backlog of "The Office" episodes. So now we have a stub with statements that with a few minor exceptions are fully supported by the sources cited.TheRingess 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you've been editing like a madman!!! Now you are getting in to the spirit! I've been working on the article too, In fact I started editing about the same time you did, only I've been doing it in notepad so I didn't notice your edits, I'll work on combining what I've got done in to the article. Weird though, I just finished catching up on my backlog of The Office episodes too, The Christmas episode was quite good. -- GIR 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic I nearly died laughing during the christmas episode. The scenes in the japanese restaurant were priceless.TheRingess 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gir, thanks for your nice comments (I'm a she, not a he, BTW), and TheRingess, thanks for the friendly debate and all the work you've done on this article since this started! Pinball22 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not WP:OR as it's a collection of opinions and hypothesis expressed by guests on Coast to Coast (which has already been established as an acceptable source of fringe opinions in regards to the paranormal because of the shows popularity and audience reach). HOWEVER, the topic isn't notable, and represents a collection of similar fringe ideas rather than a single fringe ideas. perfectblue 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually it's not OR anymore, my contention was that it was; at the start of this rather lengthy discussion.TheRingess 09:03, 21 December 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 Chinese cuisine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:15Z

Chinese Food

[edit]
Chinese Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete, WP:NOT a collection of plot summaries for songs that were never released as singles and are thus non-notable outside of the context of the album. Recommend removal of edit history through deletion and subsequent recreation as redirect to Chinese cuisine. --Kinu t/c 07:09, 19 December 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeko

[edit]
Deeko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 07:22Z

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

The result was early closure of this discussion, as suggested by several contributors here and on the admin noticeboard. This mass nomination clearly won't produce any sort of meaningful consensus either way. All remain free to re-list these articles individually. The nominator is kindly requested to remove the AfD tags from the articles. Sandstein 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Carbon

[edit]
Team Carbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a team specific to Major League Gaming, but fails to be notable under WP:BIO. Also included in this AfD are the following pages:

I would check the contributors' other edits to these pages, as they're all recent and they all centre around the MLG. There seems to be over a dozen pages associated with this.

Even if the page is remotely notable, the players are not. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, I'm not so sure about Team Carbon. Also, Colin: are you sure you've added the AfD notice to all the articles? I'm not seeing one for Dave Walsh. Gzkn 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my relatively short time participating in AfD discussions I have seen a lot of grief come from these mass nominations and not once have I seen one result in a well-organized, thoughtful debate that came to any sort of conclusion. No offense to the nominator. Maybe this is a strategy that needs to be rethought or retired?--Dmz5 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would note that the majority of the articles nominated, aside from Johnathan Wendel, have been created solely by one user, in an act that appears to be promotional intention. None of the other persons, or teams, appear notable under WP:BIO at the current time. Perhaps in the future - but right now, this appears to be simply an attempt to drum up publicity for Major League Gaming. Haemo 08:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I have had some bad experiences with mass nominations as well, I have seen and even started some good, successful ones as well. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar inflation], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Street, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Arredi. Recently, we have had some mass nominations of towers (radio towers mainly) which went quite smoothly as well. But the articles have to be fairly similar or very related to have a successful discussion (no matter if the result is delete or keep, like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abusaria). Fram 10:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Delete In the electronic sports circuit, the Major League Gaming is regarded as being non-notable, or only minor at best. The same goes for its players and teams. It seems that these articles were mostly created by people from the MLG in order to extend its playerbase onto WP. There are three articles here nominated however, that are not linked to the MLG and that are actually on top professional gamers/teams. These three being Team NoA, Team 3D and Johnathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel. For instance, they have all performed at a top level this year, as shown in 2006 e-Sports World Champions. Therefore, delete the MLG related articles and keep the actual professional gamers and teams Team NoA, Team 3D and Johnathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel. -- DJiTH 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also delete Ken Hoang and Dave Walsh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djith (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not be reluctant to make a clear distinction between the MLG articles and non-MLG articles before casting a vote.. -- DJiTH 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the motivation for still keeping Team 3D and Team NoA in this list? Obviously they have no connection with any of the other articles.. -- DJiTH 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of attacking this, why not cite why they're notable? I have grouped those teams in because they were included in the contributors' contributions. I have no problem with gaming groups, but there needs to be a good reason for why they're notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Team NoA and Team 3D have won world championships with their Counter-Strike teams. NoA's Counter-Strike team won the World e-Sports Games first season in 2005 (in front of a live audience of thousands and an internet audience of hundreds of thousands), 3D's team won the World Cyber Games Counter-Strike competition in both 2004 and 2005. These are considered two of the most prestigious titles in the competitive gaming circuit. Of course, the articles should be updated to comply with certain standards, but other than that, the subjects are absolutely notable. -- DJiTH 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, both the Team NoA and Team 3D articles significantly pre-date the other articles (both being about 2 years old) and contain actual content instead of just the MLG records of the teams. If you review the articles, you will see that these two teams are, in fact, notable. Also, I think they call hunting down any articles edited by another author "Wiki-stalking". --Habap 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it may constitute as "wiki-stalking," when you see an editor making several pages all of which are non-notable, then logic would dictate that you'd see what this guy is up to. I have since gone ahead and struck-out Team NoA and Team 3D. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that Reuters would fall for that. But that's a whole different discussion :) -- DJiTH 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Keep - Keep Tom and Dan Ryan. They have plenty of sources, such as a full front page section B article in a large paper, The Columbus Dispatch (unfortunately, you must have a subscription to read the archives). They won the 2005 World Cyber Games in Halo 2, which according to Wikipedia, is "the largest gaming festival celebrated once a year". A few articles related to that: [27] and they are even mentioned in the BBC News article on the festival, which tries to be mostly focused on the UK participants [28] Here's a nicely done interview on a large gaming website, GotFrag, if you'd like to add more than "just their MLG standings" [29] The argument is that Team 3D is notable, they are former members of Team 3D's Halo 2 team. They appear on the MTV True Life: I'm a Professional Gamer as the people to beat that T-Squared just can't defeat. I may be wrong, but I believe that they have been discussed on the gaming channel G4 multiple times. They are #1 and #2 in the MLG league, which I do not believe is non-notable or minor (what other leagues have a TV spot on USA, a channel carried in most homes across the country?) According to Wikipedia notability standards, they belong. They: "are competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable" "have a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" I could add more sources, more, better arguments, but I hope that will suffice, as I don't want to spend way more time on this than necessary. If it doesn't I will keep adding, keep sourcing, I will locate better sources (there are just the first few I found). I will even personally re-write anything that has to be changed or added if necessary. Thank you! J0lt C0la 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all First of all, the nomination is far too large. Second, they (the teams and individuals) play in a league that has its own program on a major US cable network. If they are taken as sportspeople, then they meet WP:BIO by playing at the highest competitive level of their sport. -- Kicking222 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All except for TuLegit;Johnathan Wendel, Team 3D and Team NOA were made months before the rest of the articles were even thought of! Johnathan Wendel has participated in a few MLG events, Team 3D sponsored the best MLG Halo 2 team in 2005. First off all, think about what your really doing - JUST LOOK AT Tsquared's page, this is one of the people you are trying to get rid of!!! If you look at every players page, they have been shown over a dozen times on Television. Most of the players have been featured in an article AND a magazine- the only players I can think of that haven't been featured in both are maybe StrongSide and Cpt. Anarchy, MAYBE! I have put in the rest of the references, cleaned up the first paragraphs in each electronic sports team wikipage and removed all the nonsense. Since all the team pages are clean, all the members should be clean as well. These pages are significant because all the players and teams have been shown on television from November 2006 to the end of December 2006 on USA Network on the weekly basis. I even put a link to episode 5 and 6 on every highly relevant page. They all have been featured in atleast a magazine, article, and some have been on the radio. Top MLG Halo 2 gamers are as significant as any other professional sports athlete.

user:arrashju 20 December 2006 @ 11:11 PM

  • Abstain - On the basis of lazy nomination. Mass listing makes it hard to determine individual notability. The Kinslayer 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, this is already a trainwreck . It is a ridiculous combination of AfDs. Impossible to decide this way, better to close this one and list individually, if you must. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - same reasons as above, plus some of the names on the list seem to be notable enough to be kept. The nominator was lazy and completely unconcerned with any sort of article checking. It appears he just listed names he saw links to from a couple of articles. If he can't be bothered dealing with the people one at a time, I can't be bothered finding anything good to say about this appalling AfD. The Kinslayer 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list individually - Mass nominations always end up as trainwrecks as no consensus can be made when they are individual articles. Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mass deletion attempt.

Quoting WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1

Trivial being the publishing media not falling for something that's more of a facade than the actual real thing? Any media publishing on the MLG with the claim that this is 'the real thing' have no idea what they're talking about and just fell for the MLG money-generated PR-machine. As said before, within the global e-Sports circuit, the MLG is regarded as non-notable, only minor at best. This being due to all kinds of factors, such as the competition model, the platforms being chosen, and so on. But most importantly, the lack of competitive nature and skill curve in the games being chosen. These players and teams should not have an article.. Players like Johan "Toxic" Quick, Paul "czm" Nelson, Xiaofeng "Sky" Li, fnatic, Pentagram, etc. should. Wikipedians should not forget being on the lookout for companies like these that are trying to re-invent history.. -- DJiTH 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me some proof that the "global e-sports circut" considers MLG non-notable, for I've never heard of this. This just sounds like your opinion, which group would you rather push? Even if MLG's "PR machine" is "trying to re-invent history" , they're succeeding, because many people, even non-gamers and casual gamers have heard of MLG, and its members get widespread media attention, making them notable by Wikipedia's standards, which is all that matters. This AfD debate is not about whether you like MLG and their set-ups and gametypes or whether or not they're overshadowing "better" leagues, but whether or not they meet Wikipedia standards to deserve an article, which they clearly do. J0lt C0la 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, MLG is only featured on websites and other media that have no target of covering e-Sports. You will mostly see MLG featured in either business media or mainstream media, while both are obviously not knowledgeable of the field of e-Sports (yet). Sure, there will be articles on e-Sports websites, but only sporadicly. Though, you're pointing out an excellent flaw here in the Wikipedia standards, basically that journalists can invent history, or worse, that vampire corporations can use media as a tool to do so. That being said, regard the following sentence from WP:BIO: "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.". Now regard that most of the references made in player articles are from the MLG's own website, or from MLG affiliates, like "USA Network". That aside, I'm not involved in any crusade against the MLG, on the contrary even, but I just think that there needs to be some counter-pressure against the way it currently operates and tries to position itself in the media. It's dangerous in a field that is relatively young, is the lastest buzz, and where media have no background in the subject yet. Yes, the MLG should have an article, but the players should not, whereas they have only played in one single, minor, national competition, and only have for a short period of time (apart from some participating in WSVG). Using money as the only motivation just harms the sport and the truth. If you are able to look at the whole field objectively, whether you are related to MLG or not, you will have to come to the conclusion that WCG, ESWC, CPL, WSVG, WEG, KODE and so forth are all more notable than MLG, definitely on a global scale. This all being said, multiple people suggest that this AfD will never reach any consensus and I think so too. So let's leave this for what it is and close the listing. -- DJiTH 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with e-sports. And whereas I consider the CPL and WCG to be of vastly greater importance than childsplay on consoles like the MLG, the mainstream press sees no different. It's not our job to be elitest, no one in e-sports gives a shit about the frag dolls, but I doubt you'll manage to delete that. - hahnchen 04:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not even comment on this board unless you have a good understanding of the leagues. Why would WCG even take Halo off of their list of competitive games if MLG is so small? In addition, why would any organization broadcast for a non-affiliate anyway? How is USA Network different than any other US cable channel? Don't avoid answering the question directly anymore, why do you believe MLG and their top three teams are non-notable?

  • Comment, As suggested above, let's go with a general (no consensus) closure of this chaotic multi-listing and individual relisting of all nominated articles. It's the only way. Deizio talk 03:40, 23 December 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 TradeWars 2002. Merge was considered appropriate but didn't happen. Redirect retains ability to merge if there is interest, and is relevant, and avoids recreation of separate articles. Since there was no discussion on the two Star Trek usages (TransWarp drive and Class H planet), I'm going to also redirect them to Tradewars 2002, but feel free to re-redirect or disambig them. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:42Z

Merchant Cruiser

[edit]
Merchant Cruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Okay, I've got the same universal disdain for mass listings as anyone else, but I think the case for packaging here is open-and-shut. All of these articles are a massive walled garden of game-guide information, including extreme details about the specifications and statistics of individual ships. There is zero information from an out-of-universe perspective. Were that not enough, they are in fact specifically targeted for one version of the game. The article for the game version itself (TradeWars 2002) is not included in this AFD, although it probably should be merged with its parent Trade Wars article.

It should be pointed out that one of the articles for an individual ship already failed an AFD with a merge determination on 29 November that hasn't happened, and there was already talk page discussion of merging all the ship articles into a list on 6 December that hasn't happened either. However, since there is nothing to merge except highly detailed in-universe statistics and strategy (i.e. game guide content), I fail to see how that would solve the problem at hand.

Articles in this package nomination:

  • Various TradeWars 2002 ships
Merchant Cruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scout Marauder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Missile Frigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corellian Battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corporate Flagship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colonial Transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CargoTran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merchant Freighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Imperial StarShip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Havoc GunStar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
StarMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Constellation (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
T'Khasi Orion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tholian Sentinel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taurean Mule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Interdictor Cruiser (TradeWars 2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferrengi Assault Trader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferrengi BattleCruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferrengi Dreadnaught (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferrengi Scorpion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Other game content
Federation (TradeWars 2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferrengi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quasar cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TransWarp drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (should redirect to Warp drive for Star Trek usage)
Class H planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (should redirect to Star Trek planet classifications for Star Trek usage)

--Serpent's Choice 08:29, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement (Sweden)

[edit]
The Movement (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Highly disputable if this actually is the term used in Swedish politics for the broader Social Democracy. Soman 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to 8-Bit Theater. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:33Z

Plot Synopsis of 8-Bit Theater

[edit]
Plot Synopsis of 8-Bit Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is a simple retelling of the plot of the webcomic 8-Bit Theater. This plot isn't especially significant for anything but the comic itself; in addition, the comic retells the story of the video game Final Fantasy. Including such a detailed plot synopsis here seems gratuitous and unnecessary. R. Wolff 10:05, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fazzini paradox

[edit]
Fazzini paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Search for "Fazzini paradox" on google yields only this page and another with a link to this page. All content is covered by liar paradox which is its proper name. This page creator's entries so far have only be vandalism. Andeggs 10:37, 19 December 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 Already merged, redirected please note that AfD is not meant to request merges. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder

[edit]
Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is no doubt it is notable, but I suggest merge to parent article Arnold Schwarzenegger. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:40, 19 December 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 dismissed as the article has been rewritten, expanded, sourced since the AFD nomination. No prejudice against renomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:32Z

1-5-7-1

[edit]
1-5-7-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I initially put this on proposed deletion, but the template was removed by Luna Santin citing that he wasn't familiar with precedent in this area. Looking at the article, it appears to be just a message bank service for telephone companies in the UK. I don't think any country's message bank service is notable and worth having a wikipedia article on because not much can be described about it beyond its features (which are generally the same everywhere). I note, however, that we have other phone number articles; 9-1-1, 000 emergency and 1-1-1 come to mind, while we have articles on all the N11 codes. I think emergency services and many of the services provided by n11 numbers are more important than voicemail, though admittedly some of the articles for the individual n11 numbers could be merged. As for this case, the article should be deleted as it is a message bank and not much can be said about it. Graham87 11:20, 19 December 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 WP:CSD A7 and G11. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of Mana Theater

[edit]
Secret of Mana Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability or importance. No references from independent sources. No indication that subject meets inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Article was tagged CSD-A7, speedy removed by first-edit IP 72.161.57.126 with summary (take it to afd...). So, here it is. Serpent's Choice 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - it's still a speedy candidate. Unless our anon does something about it, it'd better get out of here fast. Let's see what an admin has to say about it... MER-C 12:42, 19 December 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 Deletion debate merged to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessio Ferramosca. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Neri

[edit]
Riccardo Neri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Should have been bundled with the Alessio Ferramosca AfD, and similarly, he is not notable except for his death, and thus fails WP:BIO and meets WP:NOT a memorial. MSJapan 12:36, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:12Z

Astro Empires

[edit]
Astro Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

MMORPG, still in beta. Alexa is about 85,000, the only references are from the website and its associated forums. Fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only just onto a second server, still in beta, no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely fails WP:WEB as I can't find anything about it anywhere else. Jayden54 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article, I imagine, will be greatly needed some day. Although there are not many refs outside the official website, there will probably be more to come as before release of the game; there will not be too much media coverage of it as with type of game, they generally only get fansites. Greeves 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought, why is the article both an AfD and a PROD? Greeves 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone didn't know that AFD autmotically supercedes PROD. This can be confusing, because the third deletion path (speedy deletion) is neither superceded by these nor supercedes them until actual deletion occurs. Someone has already fixed this, however. GRBerry 02:28, 23 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students as teacher educators

[edit]
Students as teacher educators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A1 (no context) and WP:CSD#A3 (no content). They do not apply. The remaining question is whether the subject is encyclopedic. That is why I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:01, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:28Z

Mangeshda

[edit]
Mangeshda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

editor keeps adding inappropriate speedy tag, procedural nomination, no vote A Ramachandran 13:57, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyenas

[edit]
The Hyenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested prod, fails WP:MUSIC. Natalie 14:09, 19 December 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 by King of Hearts. Tevildo 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWF Wrestling

[edit]
BWF Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. -- THL 01:49, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Fulwood

[edit]
Barony of Fulwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Taken care in the meantime ~~ Phoe talk 08:39, 21 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:11Z

Bundesautobahn 643

[edit]
Bundesautobahn 643 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Really not all that notable. Walton monarchist89 12:37, 19 December 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 close; redirecting does not require AfD. I have made the article a redirect as a regular editor action. Tizio 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara: The Evolution (Special Edition)

[edit]
Ciara:_The_Evolution_(Special_Edition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Redirect to Ciara: The Evolution. Blackjays 00:20, 19 December 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 wasSpeedily closed. Article redirected per nominator's suggestion to existing article on this topic. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR (more or less). Serpent's Choice 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet and Clank 5

[edit]
Ratchet and Clank 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Although this article may not fail any guidelines, there is already an existing article (Ratchet & Clank (PS3)) on the same subject. The article has been copy-and-pasted on the talk page of the existing article so that any additional information may be added on. If the deletion occurs, I suggest that the article in question be a redirect page to prevent any addition of articles. Sr13 23:59, 18 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:27Z

Tapu Javeri

[edit]
Tapu Javeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Boigraphy of a photographer written by user:Tapujaveri with no 3rd party references. Looks like spam to me. -- RHaworth 14:18, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:26Z

GuildCafe

[edit]
GuildCafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:WEB. All references except one seem to be a rehash of the press release, which the guidelines address Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site are not considered notable coverage. Doesn't appear to have won any notable awards. Site is brand new, still in beta. If and when it comes out and gains notability I wouldn't oppose its having an article. In addition, not in top 100,000 websites [31] hasn't bee on the radar with a measurable page reach until 3 weeks ago [32].Crossmr 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have made some improvements to the article, removing some references that appeared to be links to duplicate content. I also added an additional assertion of notability regarding the hosting of the Bartle test. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator. Although it appears that this website/company is quite notable from all the press mentions, if you dig down a bit deeper all you'll find is the initial press release of the launch. Jayden54 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page was originally created by Jacoplane as part of the WikiProject Computer and video games articles, after press coverage of the company's original launch in September under the name SparkForge. The article refers to press coverage of at least three separate announcements. Nor is the company simply a "website," it is a company developing technology of interest in the computer game industry. Tarinth 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other comment--the original creator of the page, Jacoplane, is listed as on vacation according to his user page, but it would be helpful to get his reaction as well. Tarinth 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage listed doesn't seem to be anything other than rehashing of the press release. Do you have some other coverage that isn't listed there? A quick google search didn't reveal anything but more of the same. How would Jacoplane's input be anymore helpful than any other editor? If editors can't find evidence of notability that is hidden so well that we need someone specific to show it to us, it isn't likely a notable site.--Crossmr 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search reveals in excess of 40,000+ hits, and as with anything that has received significant interest within an industry, there will be a lot of duplicates. However, looking through some of the higher ranked items one finds a number of articles with editorial commentary, as well as mentions in prominent industry sites (beyond computer gaming) such as Mashable and O'Reilly Radar. One also has to consider the 2,000 Ghits related to the company's former name, SparkForge (the original name under which the article was created under in September), which turns up some other media coverage of the company within the gaming industry. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which are all just rehashes of the press release. There isn't really multiple, non-trivial coverage independent of the source.--Crossmr 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, there *are* several different items, and this should be clearer with the removal of a couple of the duplicates.
  • Delete, no evidence of notability in terms of WP:WEB. And yes, most of the articles are rehashes of the press release. --Kinu t/c 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wholeheartedly disagree with the petition to delete. To delete Guild Cafe, you would then have to delete all other online communities listed in Wikipedia, including: MySpace, Classmates and YouTube. The website is a tool that helps people around the world share similar ideas. Unless there are existing regulations on how popular, large or well known an online community is, I do not see how you can delete this article. Does an Wikipedia entry now have to be an award winner to be listed in Wikipedia? I do not see that requirement in any wikipedia guideline that says a website has to be in the top 100,000 rankings. If you can specify where these guidelines are, then yes I would agree with deletion. There are nearly 1,000 people using Guild Cafe and is an open AND FREE public service. On the other hand, however, there is an entry for a video game that is currently PRIVATE and in CLOSED beta, will have a purchase price and a monthly charge that you have not petitioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_Saga_of_Heroes That product has not yet been released. So according to your newly devised standards, any wikipedia entry that relates to an online service must meet the following criteria:

A top 100,000 website An established product with X amount of users Must have won notable awards Must not be in Beta Must not be "brand new" - Wikipedia only allows entries of Old Items and dated information

Wikipedia "GUIDELINES" state that an entry must meet 1 of 3 requirements to be posted. A person writing a press release does not make something notable. What makes it notable is who thought the press release was worthy of re-publishing. 99% of press releases wrote are trashed by the receivers. In this case, relevancy and notability prevail as this press release was picked up, published and/or edited by major influences in the industry/field it relates to:

IGN - the leader of online gaming felt it was important and relevant Warcry - One of the top 10 MMORPG gaming sites felt it was notable Stratics.com - A leader in delivering MMORPG industry news felt it was notable TentonHammer - Another industry leading website picked it up and reported on it.

If anything the entry should be re-edited for neutrality, but definitely not deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.230.25 (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 22, 2006.

What makes it notable is who thought the press release was worthy of re-publishing. Actually no. Re-read the guideline. Reprinting of the press release doesn't make it notable, regardless of who picked it up. It doesn't satisfy a single of the criteria listed and until it does, it doesn't qualify for an article here. If you feel there are other websites which don't meet the criteria feel free to create an account and nominate them for deletion, we're here to discuss this article though.--Crossmr 06:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time researching this morning and found the following well established website that included Guild Cafe as a relevant gaming entity. http://www.gokidsnj.com/article2294.html. This url was referenced off this websites "Video Games For Kids' search http://www.gokidsnj.com/modules.php?name=new-jersey-news-for-parents&news_for_parents=50&new_jersey=7
Other non-press release mentions on the internet:http://www.mmodig.com/?p=451,http://mashable.com/2006/12/01/rupture-napster-founders-world-of-warcraft-social-network/,http://www.gamingblog.org/entry/guildcafecom-explore-your-social-network/
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.230.25 (talk • contribs) 21:00, December 23, 2006.
This is all fairly longwinded, but I think the point he may be making that *is* generally regarded as relavent in terms of both WP:WEB and WP:CORP is the extensiveness of coverage and/or linkage, i.e., 40K+ Ghits. Tarinth 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those links are blogs, and not meaningful in terms of measuring the notability of a site, and the other once again qualifies as a trivial mention per WP:WEB. I still don't see any multiple non-trivial coverage of the site.--Crossmr 19:52, 24 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:25Z

Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2004

[edit]
Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to serve a purpose and looks as if no one has worked on it in a while. At the very least WP:NOT#IINFO. Billboard lists can be good, but this one is poorly formatted and this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. But useful how? The info is not organized very well and clicking any of the titles would bring up the chart information shown, within the songs' articles. Seems like another random page to highlight current recording artists... my guess is that there was never any intention to create similar pages dating back to 1958. - eo 14:59, 24 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:25Z

Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2005

[edit]
Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are lists like this for 2004 and 2006 - all formatted poorly and they seem to fall under the WP:NOT#IINFO scenario. Not sure what the point is, as this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. But useful how? The info is not organized very well and clicking any of the titles would bring up the chart information shown, within the songs' articles. Seems like another random page to highlight current recording artists... my guess is that there was never any intention to create similar pages dating back to 1958. - eo 15:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn 10 years pages like theses may be useful for people researching history. I think that they should be merged into one page. One section of the page for each year. There needs to be an introduction added to the top of the page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:24Z

Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2006

[edit]
Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are pages like this for 2004 and 2005 as well... all poorly formatted, seems to fall under WP:NOT#IINFO scenario. Not sure what the purpose is here, but this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. But useful how? The info is not organized very well and clicking any of the titles would bring up the chart information shown, within the songs' articles. Seems like another random page to highlight current recording artists... my guess is that there was never any intention to create similar pages dating back to 1958. - eo 15:00, 24 December 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. (Article was rewritten entirely, so most of the AFD discussion became irrelevant; no prejudice against re-nomination.). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:23Z

Computer organization

[edit]
Computer organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Article merely pushes non-standard terminology; standard terminology is to use "computer architecture" to encompass both areas mentioned. RandomP 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep. Was a POV fork of Computer architecture, if a fairly innocuous one, but now it isn't. -Amarkov blahedits 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Even if it was a standard term, this particular meaning is explained in the intro to the "real" article, and isn't really different or important enough to warrant its own article. yandman 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect - per yandmand's comment, and the article hardly contains any content that is worth keeping. Jayden54 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Why delete first then redirect, rather than just redirecting? Doesn't deleting destroy potentially useful history? My appologies if the answer to this is somewhere really obvious. delldot | talk 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very good point. Too many company press release AfD discussions have turned me into a real Genghis... It's usually used to stop the author just reverting back to the original, but I don't think whoever wrote this article is that passionate about hardware. yandman 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that's a good point, I wasn't thinking of that. However, it's good to actually have a moderated discussion prior to what amounts to blanking an article, isn't it? I'd suggest to the closing admit to close this with status "turn into redirect", or something like that. RandomP 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on rewrite. Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s rewrite of the article did change the definition to mean exactly the opposite of what it previously meant. I still believe that "computer architecture" is a term encompassing "computer organization", though it now appears there are opposite opinions of which part of computer architecture should be considered "computer organization". Google comes up with a third definition, noticeably different both from the old and the new article version. Wikipedia isn't the place to decide terminology wars, and to me (a non-professional observer) that appears the most likely explanation. RandomP 01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous version of the article was based solely upon one single person's submission to another wiki. (The URL for it is in the earliest version of the article, q.v..) The current version of the article is based upon computer science books, which all agree on what computer organization is — as, indeed, does the university course summary that you have linked to. That the person who submitted the content to that other wiki got what computer organization is egregiously wrong, and indeed, completely the opposite of what it is, is not a reason to dispute the necessity for this article. It's simply yet another demonstration of why wikis, with no peer review or fact checking processes, are not good sources. It's also a good demonstration of how a few minutes' work with Google Books would have found the books that were being talked about on the article's talk page. Uncle G 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we have consensus now that there is something called "computer organization", that it's to do with building and designing computer hardware (i.e. what is commonly known as "computer architecture"), and that it involves box diagrams, and implementing a computer architecture (note article). In any case, the article is now not exclusively about terminology (if only through mentioning the box diagrams) and should thus be expanded and possibly merged with computer architecture, not deleted. Keep RandomP 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article could be improved rather than deleted. Yuser31415 04:53, 26 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestar

[edit]
Palestar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as speedy A7 but contested. Creator, Drafell (talk · contribs) has no obvious contributions outside of this company and its creations, company is an independent with (according to the article) one released game. No particular opinion on it myself. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:19Z

Harvest (Neopagan magazine)

[edit]
Harvest (Neopagan magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable publication Frater Xyzzy 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable as I can't find a lot about it, and no claims to notability in the article Jayden54 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how about if we add more details on which writers published there, and which topics were covered in-depth? We can also cite references to it from other publications such as Green Egg, Whole Earth Review and Utne Reader. It's stubby now, but could be expanded. Alternatively, it could be merged into an article about a variety of influential Neopagan zines in the 80s and 90s. (note-I started this stub/article) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adler quotation establishes notability to my satisfaction. I don't think even the most notable neopagan magazine would have many references in the mainstream media. JamesMLane t c 19:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Take this info with a grain of salt because it's personal Original research but I subscribed to quite a few neopagan zines during the time period of Harvest and was a reviewer for Factsheet Five so saw even more of them. Harvest was influential, stable, and well-known in the neopagan community of the time. Remember, this was before the internet and zines were often many people's sole link to the neopagan community. Personal Disclosure: I worked on Harvest as a volunteer and as a volunteer editor reviewing other Neopagan zines for the magazine for the last few years of publication, 1990-92. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 December 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. Kimchi.sg 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Cerin

[edit]
Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This has been re-created and deleted several times, see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin. The question is whether there is notability. There is no doubt that he has written books (although arguably none from major presses or with significant sales). He appears to be a pretty determined self-promoter, which makes notability a bit difficult to judge. And a number of supposedly different people, but with nearly identical unorthodox punctuation in their posts, have been arguing for a keep. It was apparently determined that this could not be speedied as a re-creation because it is somewhat different than before, so we need to discuss it again. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed on Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board - Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy - Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The reason to allow re-creation was the added succession of links at the bottom, but none of those proves notoriety, IMO - they are merely evidence of self-promotion. Aside from two minor articles in journals, all of those seem to be easily accessible for posting and/or highly sympathetic to Cerin's persistence (diaspora "deploring" that Cerin was "denied a place in Romanian culture"). There is no accessible and neutral criticism of his work, there is no comment on it from a professional source, there is frankly no material that would prove not to have been written or ordered by Cerin himself. With a little perseverence, anybody can have his or her name flashed around on the www. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, and wikipedia should not help someone achieve notoriety - it should base itself on acquired notoriety. Dahn 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG UNDELETEIs not True what Dahn said.Sorin Cerin was published in other many journals and was invited in many TV talk shows in Romania!Please see the journals!The articles is not only" two minor articles in journals"Envy?Alinaro 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Undeleteper above,because is not true what Dahn said.Sorin Cerin was published by many newspapers and was invited in many TV shows.Romanian people know him.Keep this page.L.Marchis 18:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Browsing through the links to his works on the current version, and old versions, it seems as though many are the rambling gibberish of a schizophrenic. I know that sounds very harsh, but I say that based on the several schizophrenic friends of mine and the kind of material they produce when motivated. I do not think a judgment of notability can rely on the existence of published works in this case, and it just seems as though Mr. Cerin is not a notable author at this point in time. - Sam 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This seems to be an ongoing promotion regime of someone. --Buridan 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a Nuke and possibly salt. None of the links provided are from independent reliable third-party, reputable, non-trivial published sources. Nothing here helps him pass WP:BIO. If he was published in these peer-reviewed journals...then please post information on them so we can verify it is true. If he was invited on TV shows, provide the name of the show, airdate, an network it was distributed on. As of now, no average adult without specific expert knowledge can really verify any of this, and that is a basis of WP:V (edit conflict with buridan. We posted at the same time :) )--Brian (How am I doing?) 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because a crackpot, but because still a very marginal one.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless he can be shown to have notability beyond his or someone else's persistence in attempting to publicize him. To paraphrase what I said before, evidence of notability would include:
    • Being taught in the curriculum of at least one major university?
    • A review of one of his books in some reputable publication, either a significant specialist publication (for example, one of the many listed at [33]) or a generalist publication (New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, etc.) or even a review in a significant newspaper in almost any language.
Also, I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed that virtually all support for having an article on this person seems to be coming from people who create somewhat similar (or no) user pages and have the same oddly punctuated English. If these were not all the same person as 89.114.26.107 (talk · contribs), the IP that was briefly blocked for spamming user pages on this matter (and is now spamming again), I'd be very surprised. A usercheck might be in order. Voting more than once on the same AFD is pretty serious sockpuppet abuse.
I find this all a bit bizarre. I originally (in July) came into this with a pretty open mind that this might prove to be a notable person, but I increasingly find that unlikely, and the conduct of his "supporters" has been such as to make me increasingly skeptical of anything other than very solid evidence. - Jmabel | Talk 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and completely rewrite according to what Sorin Cerin really is notable for. He is only marginally known for his writings and definitely not established as a philosopher. On the other hand he is quite famous for all the controversy that surrounds him -- see the external links at ro:Sorin Cerin. As Joe notes, all "these" editors (at en.wp as well as ro.wp and others) have the same peculiar punctuation -- no matter the language -- and only contribute to this particular subject. Someone claiming to be Sorin Cerin himself left this message on my talk page at ro.wp and appears to be the same person who makes all these edits under a plethora of usernames and IPs. — AdiJapan ☎ 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understant it right, his "real notability" consists of 1) publishing a few lunatic books in obscure publishing houses without any significant echo in academic journals or in really important newspapers; 2) sockpupetting on Wikipedia. I do not think that this both is important enough to grant the minimum notability needed for an article here.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:47, 20 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mank

[edit]
Mank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A musician with a tenuous claim to notability, little sources. A number of albums, but all home-made CDs. Been played on the radio, but not really "subject of a broadcast" or "national rotation on major network" as WP:BAND suggests. Just not anything WP:MUSIC-ish. Weregerbil 17:08, 19 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aramco expats

[edit]

Fails WP:VANITY. - Francis Tyers · 17:25, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McKay

[edit]
Kevin McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:BIO,WP:MUSIC TonyTheTiger 17:57, 19 December 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 Out of the Park Baseball in lieu of deletion. Out of the Park Baseball should definitely be considered separately. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:18Z

Markus Heinsohn

[edit]
Markus Heinsohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page fails WP:BIO and therefore the individual is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:11, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carden El Encanto

[edit]
Carden El Encanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod contested. No assertion of notability, spammy. Húsönd 18:19, 19 December 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 online puzzle in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:16Z

Notpron

[edit]
Notpron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I understand the original AFD was closed because a sock started it with no real valid reasoning, however I do beleive the AFD should have been allowed to stay the course. This article does not pass WP:V, WP:WEB, and has no Reliable sources or actually any at all. Brian (How am I doing?) 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to point out, I have no edit history with Weffriddles or Notpron and had not heard of either of them before these AFDs. If WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:V can be met, and the article cleaned up, I would change my stance.
Comment I agree with the above. It's not a very good article, but the subject matter itself is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Collard 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well the problem is, RockMFR, that in order to keep, the article must be sourced NOW, not some time in the future, to survive this AFD. I know you believe the subject is notable, but HOW is it notable? What active acknowledged wikipedia notability guidelines does it pass? For the proposed WP:GAME (which honestly does not hold much weight right now being proposed and not active)...
The game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game:

I've looked for and found nothing on google or dogpile.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Before we get into the exceptions, I can not find any of the listed items that are about this site.

Media reprints or rewrites of press releases, advertising for the game, published walkthroughs/guides for the game, brief magazine mentions, brief television mentions, brief mentions for change in release date mentions, etc.

I can't even find this for the website

The game has been the subject of at least one non-trivial published work outside the industry.

Again, can't find anything outside of the web (since that is what the 'industry' would be) on this site.

The game has won an award from a notable award-giving body independent of the game creators, sponsors, and publishers.

Can't find anything that suggests it does nor does the website list any.

The game has been made or adapted into another media (TV, motion picture, novel, stage show, etc..) that meets the Wikipedia's notability requirements of that media. It is recommended, however, that the articles on the same subject be listed under the same name space, unless size limits come into play.

Again, no it has not.

If anyone can find multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game, I'll be all for keep. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:14, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jencka

[edit]
Daniel Jencka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable composer; does not seem to be subject of any third party sources (though he has apparently contributed some articles - not enough to meet the criteria for an academic); only a few hundred trivial google hits; original research (his "playing style" and compositional inspirations). Dmz5 18:25, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.C. Model Gaze

[edit]
O.C. Model Gaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

O.C. Model Gaze many google hits "O.C. Model Gaze" no google hits TonyTheTiger 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify?--Dmz5 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like without quotes around the phrase, google turns up a lot of hits, but the exact phrase turns up none, meaning it is not in common usage. delldot | talk 18:51, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torch Club

[edit]
Torch Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As an NYU alum I certify that this faculty lounge is not notable and cannot be verified from multiple non-trivial published sources independent of NYU. Deprodded by an NYU IP address, no reason given. - crz crztalk 18:28, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Vegetable Life

[edit]
Salty Vegetable Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable bordering on possible hoax or original research. An internet search yields few hits, most of them traceable back to this article. Glendoremus 18:42, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:13Z

Priory Community School

[edit]
Priory Community School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD, also there were copyright issues, and one user in particular is being pretty harassing about this whole issue. Yanksox 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree with Thomas here. Being a student at Priory School (not taking sides) I beleve that everyone should have a chance to improve the article. Ok there maybe some problems with copyright, thats fine to take off it but there is no need to delete all of it for the sake of a few copyright issues R27smith200245 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While I personally don't agree with the idea that every secondary school is inherently notable, there seems to be a consensus that they are, and I don't find an argument that we should delete a page because of the actions of someone who's opposed to deletion particularly compelling. On the other hand, looking over the talk page I think it would be helpful to point these people to Wikia, if it will prevent them from trying to turn this article into their school's private wiki. Geoffrey Spear 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, the issue with schools being inherently notable is through their very existance. Herein lies a problem. I exist, I am pretty productive irl, I'm an admin on Wikipedia, do I garner an article? And if so, I demand that someone here writes it. Flatter me, please. </bad humor> Yanksox 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. There are secondary schools that are notable. There are others which are not. The only thing possibly notable here is the good results on a standardized exam. If that is to be a criterion, let us get the list, and start adding from the top and eliminating from the bottom. In any case, even that is unsourced.DGG 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the multiple third-party sources? —Centrx→talk • 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhen i made the page, i only made it as to inform people of our school and to give people information about it. Other schools have articles so why shouldnt we, if you gave us a chance to build it up yanksox instead of deleting something everytime its put up there, perhaps the article could become a much better one. in a democratic world we do not work off one mans opinion, we work on the factor that if someone wants something to be seen or heard, they are given this opportunity, they are not told to back down. I feel we should be given a chance to build up the article before you delete it.Thomas Murlis 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Independent sources? Edison 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A brief search reveals the school was notable enough to be the subject of an Open University course module, and at least one research paper. I've added the details to the article, and intend to keep a critical eye on it. Eludium-q36 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, further research indicates that this does pass WP:SCHOOL muster. Bahn Mi 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the meantime. Is this school by itself or is it part of a larger group of schools? It looks like its own entity. Mazin07C₪T 21:23, 21 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:15Z

Steve Gregg

[edit]
Steve Gregg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Yes, from what I know, subject has notability per the specifications. Subject is renowned outside his immediate locality, including the South Amercia, Israel, and throughout the world. Subject has been published by independant publishing houses, including Thomas Nelson Publishers, etc. I believe this article fulfills the guidelines. If you need any information please contact me, and thanks again for your tips and your help. I will begin to source some of my findings. Loaves 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional references. Please let me know if the subject still satisfies WP:V. -- Loaves 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject talk is also available for discussion should that be your preference -- Loaves 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References in the article are webforums and websites controlled by the subject of the article. There's no independent sourcing that establishes notability. If better references can be provided, I'll happily change my position. Geoffrey Spear 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Copy&Paste from Subject talk) Thank you for the continued help. Would Mr. Gregg's book qualify per the specifications of WP:BIO? (Gregg, Steve (1997), Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 0840721285). A mild, independent bio is in this book. I am asking if this would qualify. Also please visit this page; per that page, I'm assuming some interest has already been shown for this topic. --Loaves 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello all, I'm listing some additional references below:

http://www.methings.com/podcasts/index.php?iid=1166 http://www.christiancomicsinternational.org/pioneers2.html http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/gregg-steve_revelation.html http://www.aiias.edu/academics/seminary/aass/vol3-2000/bookreviews.pdf

I want to specifically draw your attention to the PDF file. Search for "Steve Gregg." Let me know what your opinion is. -- Loaves 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Consider the many riffraffs who have articles. This one is actually reputable and has authored books with ISBNs. You should delete the article if Steve Gregg or colleagues personally make such a request. Lord willing, we can do it.--Patchouli 02:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, I did thoroughly review the references before I posted my "Delete" opinion above. To do otherwise would have been irresponsible. Specifically, here is what I found:
  1. The www.thenarrowpath.com information is not third-party.
  2. The www.nelsonministryservices.com site, being a directory, is trivial coverage.
  3. The podcast site at tnp.theeggbeater.net is not a reliable, third-party source.
  4. The www.wvss.com site is a forum where anyone can post, and thus not a reliable source.
  5. The podcast site at www.methings.com is not a reliable, third-party source.
  6. The www.christiancomicsinternational.org mini-bio is a trivial mention.
  7. The www.preteristarchive.com site is not a reliable, third-party source.
  8. The www.aiias.edu reference is a trivial mention.
Finally, a search on Google News produces 0 hits for the Steve Gregg here. Thus, Mr. Gregg does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO, which requires that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." -- Satori Son 22:43, 26 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal queen

[edit]
Anal queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not sure, but I think this would count as a neologism. 708 unique hits, albeit inculding a film title [34] but likely not one warranting inclusion in Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:01, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Own Decay

[edit]
Your Own Decay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

686 Google hits, with nearly all of them meaning the term rather than the band. Fails all WP:BAND criteria. I wonder how this article servived for that long. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:05, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Maria Casas "two-"

[edit]
Jose Maria Casas "two-" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as speedy A7 (no asseriton of notability) but there is an assertion of notability. Whether it's credible is another matter. An artist getting exhibitions in art bars can be significant or insignificant, it depends on the context, and without secondary sources we can't really judge. The author has no contribs outside this subject and makes the usual "delete this and you must delete all these others" argument, but that does not necessarily mean this is bunk. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 19 December 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. A separate AFD should be opened to consider Nestlé Rowntree F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:08Z

Poppleton United F.C.

[edit]
Poppleton United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable English football club. Play four levels below criteria previously accepted as notability bar, and have never previously played at higher level. fchd 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, thanks for the link. I've added a sourced part to the article about Marco Gabbiadini starting out at the club, surely the fact that an England B international that has been involved in million dollar moves over the years, has played for them makes the club "notable"? - Deathrocker 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - looks like Gabbiadini joined York City by the age of 16. I don't see how him spending time with a junior team contributes to the notability of the main club. Even on Gabbiadini's article, it states "Poppleton Juniors" which I see is now a redirect to the Poppleton United page. Nothing on the main page mentions any junior sides etc. at all. I still think personally this is quite a long way from meeting the criteria as defined by guideline and precedent. - fchd 12:40, 24 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:09Z

Tomb of Muhammad Iqbal

[edit]
Tomb of Muhammad Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - two of the six images are already included in the Muhammad Iqbal article so merging isn't an option (would overwhelm the article) and there just doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article just for the tomb to note that there are many visitors each day. Otto4711 20:49, 19 December 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 per CSD A7.

Gavin Johnston

[edit]
Gavin Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Biographical article that provides no claim or evidence of notability. Resoundingly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:55, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:07Z

HellBound Hackers

[edit]
HellBound Hackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This website doesn't meet verifiability because of a lack of reliable sources. 13 unique google hits and an Alexa ranking of around 200,000. Also doesn't meet inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Wafulz 20:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wait - I get 38,000 google hits with my search

[35]. Abstaining. Chovain 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the second page of your search... --Wafulz 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also get around 38,000 results through Google but I can't find any coverage by reliable sources (i.e. nothing in Google News) so it doesn't pass WP:WEB. Jayden54 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - HackThisSite is a much smaller website with the same theme and purpose, if this article isn't good enough/is biased (I fixed the criticism thing) then it should be edited or rewritten, I think it's unfair thhat it's being put up for deletion before it's even near completion Happysmileman 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Again, HTS has its own page, mostly because of the Jeremy Hammond going to jail thing, does it take a webmaster's incarceration to be notable? it's looking like that's going to happen to HBH, and then it'll have plenty of sources. It's probably the biggest, most well put together hack challenge website. Sometimes information can be useful without meeting sources requirements. If those awards that they give to websites that make them notable like Webbies or whatever were given to these kinds of websites, it'd have one. Sometimes slightly subversive sites like these can lack sources but are still popular, and therefore useful to Wikipedia. (this next part is just meant to be funny) As the old argument goes, if all the freaking 200 Pokemon have a page, why not this? J0lt C0la 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD for HellBound Hackers, not whatever you're talking about. "If x then y" is not an argument against "no reliable sources exist." Verifiability is an official policy, while WP:Pokémon test is an essay that is explicitly neither a policy nor a guideline. Articles like Charizard (or even Magicarp) have a plethora of sources, compared to the complete lack of sources here.
"Sometimes information can be useful without meeting sources requirements"- This would be original/primary research, which is not allowed. --Wafulz 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence was marked humor, sorry for even including it. I know it's a faulty argument, it was just wiki-humor, I used it to lighten things up some. As for the article, I've made some improvements (though I lost many towards the end when my computer crashed mid-way), and if it does stay, it will fit Wikipedia better than it did before J0lt C0la 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't to shoot down your comparison between this and pokemon- it was that the article still has no sources. --Wafulz 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent sources to show notability. Edison 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Feels like a self congratulatory ad. Elfich 20:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to admit I was wrong about this one. Originally, I thought this was a salvageable, worthwhile article about a topic that I felt was important but hindered by lack of sources due to its subversive topics (regular media would never cover anything like this unless someone's being arrested). But then I tried to improve the article and make it more encyclopedic, and it just continued to become a self-serving mess. I realize now that without sources to pull from (though sadly, there probably never will be, no matter how popular it gets, as these types of sites shun press for obvious reasons), it will always fall into the mess that this article is now. I retract my keep. J0lt C0la 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam and nothing more. --Nlu (talk) 07:00, 27 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for Everything

[edit]
Hooray for Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is a mess. First, it's three different topics: a Simpsons reference, an improv comedy troupe with at least a claim to notability, and an apparently non-notable indie band. It's easy enough to delete the band info, but what of the other topics?

  1. Is the Simpsons reference notable enough for its own article or perhaps a merge into Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons. There's hardly any material here...
  2. Is the troupe sufficiently notable for Wikipedia inclusion? They've played some notable clubs and had a single short presented at a minor, notable film festival.

I think the whole lot should be deleted as all topics lack sufficient sourcing and notability. Perhaps this article should simply become a redirect to Bart vs. Thanksgiving, the episode on which the reference was made? Scientizzle 20:58, 19 December 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 A7 by Firsfron. Tevildo 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Winthrop

[edit]
Nathan Winthrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There never was a character named Nathan Winthrop. It was a name that a character had wanted to use for a child that was miscarried. The show doesn't acknowledge the existence of the character, so there is no strong need for a page devoted to a potential name that may never have been used. D'Amico 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Kilmarnock F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:04Z

Killie pie

[edit]
Killie pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This entry fails to meet any nobility criteria. No sources are provided, reliable or not. At best it could be merged into Kilmarnock Football Club if such an article exists and a source is found. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the club article is located at Kilmarnock F.C..--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:42, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Half Life

[edit]
The Whole Half Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An unexceptional gaming website. No sign that it meets WP:WEB. No sign of notability through independent reporting. Was prod'd, tag removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dollard (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Ryan Dollard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable subject, and an apparent conflict of interest in article creation. I very much disagree with the previous AFD, whose outcome of "no consensus" was largely based on the nominator (possibly nominating on bad faith as well as disregarding WP:NPA), and a couple of keep votes that were very weak in my opinion. He has done nothing of any significance. —EdGl 21:11, 19 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell peanut

[edit]
Shell peanut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable and not verifiable. Can't find any reference to a "shell peanut". AJ Coyle is not notable and his article has been nominated for deletion. I can't find any reference to the assertion that the two Coyle's were brothers. Glendoremus 21:11, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:03Z

Elizabeth Merrick

[edit]
Elizabeth Merrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I declined a prod on this, last night, since it seemed to at least be better than the other 100+ pages I'd just deleted. I'm not entirely sure whether this particular person would meet WP:BIO. Gets some promising-looking results on Google, and even some hits on Google News (book reviews and such, mostly). So, I figure it can't hurt to ask the community what to do with this one. Thoughts? Luna Santin 21:32, 19 December 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 Neolithic religion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:08Z

Early European Religion

[edit]
Early European Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

article seems to be essentially content-free Jefferson Anderson 22:06, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:07Z

Espen Gaarder Haug

[edit]
Espen Gaarder Haug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD Yanksox 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ("financial alchemist" is an expression invented by Gorge Soros, it is about how financial theory should be seen in the light of alchemy rather than pure science. What is wrong with being in this category? That is in the category of not think too highly about the modern theory of finance ). User GoldenPi
  • Delete transparently autobiographical, vanity ("financial alchemist" my arse). Guy (Help!) 22:16, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:03Z

Rodney Pocceschi

[edit]
Rodney Pocceschi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Local police officer killed by a robber. Undoubtedly a tragedy, but doesn't seem encyclopedic. Chowbok ☠ 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep any police officer killed in duty is notable. Otherwise you may as well get rid of the whole police killed in duty categories. These officers slain are more notable than most of the minor athletes who have articles on wiki and there are hundreds of them. This article has been here for over year. Deletionists would be better off fighting vandals and improving articles rather than deleting articles.Rlevse 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd strongly disagree that "any police officer killed in duty is notable"...One can make an individual case that the circustances surrounding a police officer's death while on duty might make a stronger WP:BIO case that is otherwise weak, but inherent notability does not, nor should not, exist for a single class of persons. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so the merits of a subject's inclusion should be weighed independent of how one personally feels for the subject in particular of fallen police officers in general. Furthermore, the presence of "minor athletes" on Wikipedia has little bearing on this individual case—nominate those articles for deletion if you don't believe they belong. Also, the attack on "deletionists" is a tired ad hominem that implies that those that support deletion are somehow less interested in making quality contributions to Wikipedia than "non-deletionists." -- Scientizzle 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say I wanted the minor athletres deleted. I'm pointing out the double and inconsistent standard. If you want them deleted, go ahead. I don't make a habit of deleting other people's work. On another note, thank you for adding the vests entry to the article as it certainly helps.Rlevse 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree that it's a double standard--WP:BIO is the standard by which fallen police officers, bench-warming baseball players and everyone else is judged. You haven't made a case as to why "officers slain are more notable than most of the minor athletes who have articles" beyond the pathos of a fallen officer. -- Scientizzle 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment If you want to propose a guideline WP:COP that every officer killed in the line of duty gets an article, then propose it. Some of us might agree, but others might feel that any worker killed on the job is just as dead and just as sorely missed by co-workers and family. Farmers die in tractor rollovers. I think they are heroic to go out everyday knowing the risks. Same for utiility linemen, ironworkers, roofers, and miners. How about all soldiers killed in all wars? Way more heroic. The question is notability: was the death noted in multiple independent reliable verifiable sources in more than a passing reference or a listing like an obituary? More than a person who was a victim of violent crime?Edison 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rodney Pocceschi receives 172 unique Ghits. I added the only working GNews link to the article. Even the info I've added, and the memorial sites I've perused, have not convinced me that this subjects death, while needless & tragic, merits an encyclopedia article as per WP:BIO. -- Scientizzle 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with respect. WP:NOT a memorial. To say "any police officer killed in duty is notable" makes most rabid deletionists look decidedly moderate. Deizio talk 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI submit that the mere fact that his death inspired his family to save others with the Fallen Officers fund makes him notable, and that bit was found by Scientizzle.Rlevse 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Deizio and Scientizzle. If the Fallen Officers Remembered is a notable organisation (I searched but the name of the org lacks googleability), then an article about it should be created with the fact that it was inspired by Rodney Pocceschi. As noted in one of the linked articles, a law enforcement agent is killed every two days --jaydj 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that it's common makes it non-notable?Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We seem to have decided that individual murders normally do not count. Either the victim or the murderer or the circumstances most have some distinctive notability, and being a police officer is not enough--per jaydj.DGG 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "we"? Not I for sure.Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I AM MY 23000+ EDITS JUST QUIT WIKI. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS SORT OF MENTALITY. DELETIONISTS, CATEGORY NAZIS, CABALISTS, ETC MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE!Rlevse 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear that... -- Scientizzle 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As am I, and I truly hope you reconsider. Deizio talk 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as an aside, I'd like to agree with the editor above (but in less strident language) how disheartening I find it when articles that perhaps fall short of global significance but still are miles away from vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. Deletionism (of things that aren't obvious junk) strikes me as painfully counter to the long-term goals of Wikipedia. WP:NOT gets bandied around a lot, as in "Wiki is not a memorial." Very little attention seems to be paid to what is the very first section of that article, namely, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Ford MF 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I voted to delete for lack of notability, but I would rather have an article for every police officer, construction worker, or soldier killed on the job than for every episode of a game show, every subway station, TV mast, 2 lane state highway, video game character, un-famous kid band. middle school, or city street, which some people love to create. Edison 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also strong keep. And I also do kinda agree that murdered police officers are almost always notable (insofar as I'm willing do indulge a guideline I mostly disagree with). The fact that virtually all municipalities have laws designating violence against an officer as a separate category of offense, and that the epithet 'cop killer' exists and has such cultural currency is fair evidence that society treats the murder of a police officer as fundamentally different from, say, the murder of a teenage gangbanger. Both actor and victim become at least worthy of consideration for an article in my eyes. Ford MF 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Deizio, with whose observation that to say "any police officer killed in duty is notable" makes most rabid deletionists look decidedly moderate I concur entirely (to be sure, the putative notability of the subject is not exclusively the fact of his being killed whilst on duty; were, for instance, Fallen Officers Remembered to be understood as a notable/prominent group, it's likely that notability for Pocceschi would entail). I am, as others, altogether unhappy that we might lose an exceedingly excellent contributor in view, inter al., of this AfD (and I'd join in their entreaties that he stay), but this seems a pretty clear case. Joe 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being killed in the line of duty does not automatically confer notability, and nothing in the article suggests that this individual did anything notable (in the Wikipedia sense) during his lifetime. News coverage seems mostly local (correct me if I'm wrong?). Article fails WP:BIO. Note: around the world there are literally 1000s of officers who are killed in the line of duty every year. Does this make them non-notable? IMHO yes, although others may disagree. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other articles out there more worthy of deleting.Balloonman 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ford MF says it best..."how disheartening I find it when articles that perhaps fall short of global significance but still are miles away from vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. Deletionism (of things that aren't obvious junk) strikes me as painfully counter to the long-term goals of Wikipedia..." Wiki needs to reassess how it implements things or Larry Sanger and his Citizendium project will snow it.Sumoeagle179 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment A lot of you need to change perspective and get a bit more creative, I'm sure there are a lot of notable incidents involving fallen officers - if something gets widely reported then put together a page called "Rodney P murder" and tie in info about the killer, the death, news reports and such biographical info about the victim as is appropriate. But don't slam others for following the rules, it's clear this officer does not neet WP:BIO. If the memorial clause was relaxed then slain officers might well be among the first to deserve articles, but a hell of a lot of people die for a hell of a lot of reasons and I for one don't want to see WP turn into an online book of remembrance. I'll be the first to change my vote if somebody changes this page into an article covering all the aspects of a newsworthy event. Deizio talk 11:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If articles listing high ranking police officers that were just high ranking police officers are kept on wikipedia, then an article of a police officer killed in he line of duty is definitely notable. Furthermore, "It was the first felonious killing of a Virginia Beach police officer in twenty-two years" and "founded an organization named Fallen Officers Remembered" make it more noteable still. There are plenty of similar articles regarding military personnel with similar (or less) notoriety, who have fallen in the line of duty, and I've never heard the "wikipedia is not a rememberance book" comment used regarding any of them, no hostility intended Deiz. SGGH 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing by precedent or comparison is not a valid reason to !vote keep or delete. Every article should be judged on its merits. If there are articles on high ranking police officers or army personnel that do not meet WP:BIO then perhaps they too should be nominated for deletion. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Articles about high-ranking personnel still have to satisfy WP:BIO, and any article nominated for deletion must be judged on its own merits. If you find yourself making vague references to other articles to validate this one, rather than direct references to policies and guidelines (which you'll note I am doing) then maybe this subject isn't actually encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" is official policy whether you've heard it before or not. His family founded this organisation of unknown importance after he died. The lack of cop-killing in Virginia Beach is a matter for "Crime in Virginia Beach". I don't take anything at AfD personally, I wish everyone else felt the same :) Deizio talk 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment "any article nominated for deletion must be judged on its own merits" I wasn't implying that just because other articles are kept means this one must be kept, I was pointing out that wikipedia has enough space for articles of lesser notoriety. I still think that the "It was the first felonious killing of a Virginia Beach police officer in twenty-two years" and "founded an organization named Fallen Officers Remembered" make it notable, aswell as the $44'000 money grant. I don't mean to step on your toes when I say that, Deiz. :) SGGH 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. I'm certainly not one to stand in the way of consensus, although the number of "strong keep" votes being expressed here with no recourse to policy is something I would certainly consider if closing this debate, AfD is not and never has been a headcount. I do admire all editors who spend time researching topics and creating articles, as it's one of the things I enjoy the most about Wikipedia myself. May the verdict of the closing admin be declared "wonderful" by all those who witness it. Deizio talk 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Observation Wikipedia seems to not have the article on the Fallen Officers Remembered. Why not write one, then merge him under it.Jeff503 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to be bold and do so, but the organization doesn't appear to have received much coverage...maybe you can dig up some more. -- Scientizzle 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As said above, Wikipedia is not a memorial - the unfortunate event seems to have no extra encyclopedic relevance. Maybe a fallen officers memorial Wiki would be an appropriate place?Millis 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. From WP:BIO:
1) "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).
People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them."
2) "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."
This article satisfies NPOV, verifiability, does not suffer from OR, and there is public interest. Non-uniform application of the notability concept seems to be a recurring problem. Articles on video game characters, comic book characters, etc. exist to fill in information of interest to "special interest" groups. Likewise, this subject is of interest to a different "audience". The added fact that his death has inspired a grass roots effort to supply police officers with needed life-saving equipment adds to his interest. — ERcheck (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regular AfD visitors are well up on :BIO. You're making vague references to video game characters but not addressing what it is this individual achieved that makes him notable, nor establishing the significance of this organisation. As I said, this would be fine as an article about the incident given sufficient news coverage, but is much weaker as an article about the officer unlucky enough to be involved in it. Deizio talk 15:17, 23 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lopezian Paganism

[edit]
Lopezian Paganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:V, search for sources fails, hoax? original research? Jefferson Anderson 22:18, 19 December 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 Geese Howard. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:04Z

Raging Storm

[edit]
Raging Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a Greek metal band with one album (Raging Storm (album)) and one single (Sword of Doom (album)) on apparently very minor labels. Fails WP:V and apparently WP:MUSIC Deizio talk 22:28, 19 December 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 a non-notable company as per WP:CORP. No sources provided. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daum Direct1

[edit]
Daum Direct1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable company Xhtory 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 22:56, 19 December 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. This is a borderline A7, so if it spends a week on AFD with nobody objecting, it goes. >Radiant< 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timdog

[edit]
Timdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Little has been done to improve and cite this page since {{notability}} was placed on it four months ago. Moreover, Google News has had no recent press coverage of him whatsoever, but can this be rewritten per AMG? (I'm now frustrated I ever nominated it at all, but forgive me if I did the right thing.) Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:13, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:04Z

Burlington Center Mall

[edit]
Burlington Center Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous AfD failed due to a lack of consensus on what to do. Everyone agreed it wasn't notable enough, so it was split between a delete or redirecting. Hence, this article shouldn't be up. I don't see any indication of notability in it's own right or in relation to anything else. Delete. Yanksox 23:21, 19 December 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 notability issues. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theon Weber

[edit]
Theon Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Subject has only a handful of Google hits.[38] SpuriousQ 23:24, 19 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:03Z

Brasserie à vapeur

[edit]
Brasserie à vapeur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Local brewery that makes claim to brewing beer. Fails WP:CORP; lacks notability, WP:RS, and WP:V. Originally {{prod}}ded with "Non-notable, fails WP:CORP." [39]. Delirium (talk · contribs) removed {{prod}} with "contest proposed-deletion: I agree this could use more sources, but it's a fairly well-known brewery, and the existing article is short and factual".

Full disclosure: I am editor who originally {{prod}}ded article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly well-known Belgian brewery with international distribution. Thousands of google hits, some mentions in the news, and hundreds of reviews on beer rating sites (e.g. [40]). --Delirium 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not convinced that every brewery should have its own article, this one is also a museum[41], and has a unique ckaim to fame as being "the last brewery that uses steam powered equipment"[42]. Fram 09:17, 20 December 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. >Radiant< 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elfriede Motzkuhn

[edit]
Elfriede Motzkuhn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This and other articles nominated are biographical entries about (alleged) concentration camp guards with no sources. They were subject to an earlier AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Sadrinna here and kept. Since then, our policies have moved much more towards deleting unsourced biographical articles like this (they could possibly even be speedied under CSD G10). Alleging that someone is a concentration camp guard is a serious matter, and it essential that articles like this should be sourced or deleted. Enchanter 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following other pages on the same grounds:[reply]

Please also discuss deletion of the articles below, bumped from speedy (note time of addition). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 10:40Z

Gertrud Heise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Betty Hanneschaleger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berta Bommer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christel Jankowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elly Hartmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fanny Eleonore Baur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Florentine Cichon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frieda Woetzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irmtraut Sell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marie Herold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wally Meta Kilkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two more -- Samir धर्म 10:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kern (1921) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Erna Dickmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if sources can't be found (Elfriede Motzkuhn has no non-Wikipedia mirror Google hits). If sources can be found, weak delete or merge for insufficient notability (as evidenced by verifiability problems). Kusma (討論) 10:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all The articles do not present any sources to back up the statement that the subjects were Nazi concentration camp guards. It is Wikipedia policy that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." After the John Siegenthaler incident, we have tried to be careful to delete all articles or content in articles which contain defamatory material. If they are so notorious, then cite the books that document their crimes. Otherwise the articles are a clear violation of WP:BLP. Edison 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These articles were created 2 years ago and if nobody has found a source in that time, it seems unlikely that they will any time soon. The IP who created them (see contributions [43]) is from a school district, but seems from their contributions to be a single individual with many good contributions. Even so, regardless of WP:AGF, if an article (living person or otherwise) is unsourced and seems unlikely to ever be sourced, it doesn't belong here. Please see also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Sadrinna, where most of these articles were previously nominated for deletion, but strangely closed as a no consensus, even though there was an obvious consensus that the articles didn't need to be there - the only question was whether to keep around a list of names or not. BigDT 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — would appear to be `original research'. At any rate, a person is not notable simply for being a concentration camp guard (otherwise how many thousand biographies would we have to handle?); the article, moreover, states that she was neither arrested nor charged nor convicted of war crimes — probably because if she exists, and did what the articles says, she nonetheless didn't commit war crimes — guarding a camp isn't a war crime. But even mentioning the term `war crimes' in the article is disgusting, since it obliquely raises an entirely unfounded allegation in such a way as it is a non-allegation, but tacitly implies that she `got away with it' and is living somewhere happily, unpunished. No, this is filth. I haven't looked at the others, but trust they will be the same. Delete the lot of them. Rosenkreuz 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - also include Elisabeth Koorn, Suze Arts and Maria Luise Merkle. All of these were created by 68.248.199.3 which I think is a suspected sock puppet (can easily be checked - I have a good suspicion who it is - admin please contact me). All these names (several names) were created en-masse in a space of just several days in December 2004. All virtually unsourced and female nazi concentration camp guards. The tricky thing is, some real guards may have been mixed into it. At best, all these are sloppily researched (albeit with good intentions), at worst - these are hoaxes, bollocks published in wikipedia for whatever reasons. Technically they all fail verifiability, does not cite any source at all to check the facts, do not show up at all in various searches of holocaust websites (apart from Wiki entries) - if real do not meet notability, unsourced articles are anathema to WP:BIO and WP:LIVING policies making all of these wholly original research. In light of the blatant non-verifiability of these articles, the tightened wikipedia policies on biographies, and the possible use of these entries for Holocaust denial - I heartily recommend Speedy Delete if possible. Even if some of these guards are real, Wikipedia policy is clear on unsourced bio articles like these. Better NOT to have an article at all than an unsourced one.--Eqdoktor 08:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additions to delete - Can you check the following for additions to delete. All were created by 68.248.199.3. All do not show up in searches of holocaust camp websites. Nothing shows that they exist outside of Wikipedia (and affiliated sites). All have rather fanciful writeups with no cites to external source. This is very harmful as 68.248.199.3 has weaved in a lot of these names to real concentration camp articles (Ravensbrück concentration camp especially), further confusing the situation and making a mess of the encyclopedia.

I believe the existence of these women are questionable (at the best non-notable, which is thin given that some are listed as head guards). Some are written as participating in real atrocities (Suze Arts), but further research of external sources do not show their involvement (Bunker Tragedy). Refer to my entry above for technical reasons why they should be deleted. --Eqdoktor 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without sources, these articles fail almost all inclusion categories. Bucketsofg 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Its educational scouring through obscure German documents trying to authenticate some of the names. I found another one thats real but its hard to justify a wikipedia entry for non-notable obscure guards. Check out the contributions of 68.248.199.3, on Dec 13, 2004, 27 bio articles were created alone - all female guards. Some may be real but I think more mass deletes should be done based on non-notability and non-verified facts. --Eqdoktor 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added another list of personnel to this AFD, see above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 10:41Z

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

The result was merge >Radiant< 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Coka Nostra

[edit]
La Coka Nostra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deleted by myself under A7, restored by User:Friday. After some discussion and a good deal of time, I'm still not convinced that this particular group would pass WP:BIO; it's possible they'd pass WP:MUSIC, but I'll leave that decision to the community. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think the lack of really verifiable or reliable sources is itself an indication that notability is lacking. As the article says itself, "Although La Coka Nostra have yet to release a proper single, the mere posting of their songs on their myspace.com page music player...". Thoughts? Luna Santin 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge into the House of Pain article. [[[WP:MUSIC]]] states...
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Well the band is made up of all the former memebers of the House of Pain, so they do pass WP:MUSIC. However until they actually release an album, the best place for the information is on the HoP article. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you dont understand anything - maybe you would if you take a minute and read the article instead of typing up total nonsense here. house of pain is history, la coka nostra has nothing to do with them. it is a whole new thing. 87.186.12.193 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We DO understand wikipedia policy and guidelines. From that, we see that the 'band' has published no albums (myspace doesn't count). I did read the article or I would have never known the 'band' was made up of the members of HoP and a few other misc artists. Hop may be history, and this may be a 'whole new thang' but if you would like any information kept on wikipedia, the band needs to release at least to release at least one album. If they don't then the logical thing to do is merge them into the Hop article until they do. If la coka nostra has nothing to do with HoP besides it's members, then perhaps you would prefer we change our minds to delete? Those are the only two options available right now. Either we merge this information in the the HoP article and redirect any quereis made for la coka nostra to that article, or we removed the la coka nostra all together. That's it. They don't pass wikipedia policies, but they do make it on one count of WP:WEB, so I was trying to help SAVE the information in some form and I liked HoP as a kid. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe this article should absolutely not be deleted. La Coka Nostra member ILL BILL's recently released CD "ILL BILL Is The Future - Vol. 2 - I'm A Goon! - Hosted by La Coka Nostra" is available in stores worldwide and has been available on iTunes as of Dec. 19. It contains three proper LCN songs along with LCN interview soundbites. A search of iTunes for "La Coka Nostra" will yield these three songs available for purchase. I think this and the history of the group's members alone warrants the existance of this La Coka Nostra article. The accurate nature of this article and the amount of interest and acclaim already garnered by the group from the La Coka Nostra myspace page and various other interviews/articles easily accessed through a Google search of "La Coka Nostra" further cements the legitimacy of this article. --Strong Management - La Coka Nostra's offical representation. Available for confirmation/further conversation at : [email protected]. 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 Cents - Lady Sovereign had a wikipedia page before her official album dropped, aswell as many other artists. I could understand if this was a local group, or something, but since they have fans from CA to NY, and sell out huge name venues, the page should stay. Ill Bill and Slaine have released two IN STORE albums, both with La Coka Nostra songs on it. Does that not valid the group? Theres no reason the page should be deleted or merged, if Mr. T left the A-Team and did a new show, would that wikipage have to be merged with the A-Team, even though its a whole new show all together? No, it wouldn't. Stop complaining people, its valid and check information. Thanks. ---Burgz33 07:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Coka Nostra is its own project, and constitutes its own page on this website. I've seen this get merged with House of Pain, I'll tell you now, this is NOT House of Pain. This group is rapidly expanding, and deleting it now or merging it again is going to be a waste of everybody's time, since La Coka Nostra WILL be very popular in the very near future. LSN isn't worth some insignificant mention on the House of Pain page. KEEP THIS DAMN PAGE UP. --Sycotherejekt 20:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • idiotas?

Are you guys idiots just looking for a reason deleting this? Is there ANYONE with ANY insight in the scene that doubt that this is a real group and not "a myspace band". This group got some heavy hype and bootlegs floating around in the NY underground. Not to mention Ill Bill namedropping La Coka Nostra in practically every song he's done lately. Or wearing the La Coka Nostra logo in the Jedi Mind Tricks video for "Heavy Metal Kings". Whats wrong with you? Get a damn grip, will you?

  • myspace?

i got a bootlegged song called 'this is war off' off the Ill BIll Is The Future Vol. II album, i dont think anyone would bootleg a myspace band.. since i would assume they would be trying to get a fanbase by giving songs away for free, hardcore rap is not to my likes but keep the article.. 75.38.84.126 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] heres some reassurance or here (where the 1st website links to) (note they are samples)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipidea is not a crystalball on 'what might be'. Is there media coverage NOW? No. Does the band have multiple, independent, third-party, reliable, reputable published sources covering it? No. The ONLY wikipedia guideline it meets is one clause of notability. Not WP:V, not WP:RS. Tracks on other people's CD's has been noted in past AFD's not to be a valid reason to keep. Myspace or online only music is also not a replacement for a published album, again this has been covered on past AFD's. The point is, no matter what the 'fans' believe, wikipedia has standards. As of today, LCN does not live up to those standards. In the future, if they can pass the pillars of wikipedia, then they certainly should have a page, but not now. Before anyone comments, I strongly believe they should first read and understand all the wikipedia rules and guidelines to understand this is nothing personal. This is just how wikipedia is.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious why does a fictional character, or fictional games that do not even exist, and are probably known only to fans and followers, get an article but when pretty well known rappers start a group with little 'hiatus' or so-called media hype, they get article called for article deletion or merged with an article that doesn't even go together that doesn't make any sence, if this is just how wikipedia is.. well i've been editing, and using the wrong website for years. i'm not directing this at a personal thing i'm just trying to make a point.. which will probably fly over peoples heads.. whatever. i thought wikipedia was about information.. anyways i dont care what you guys do with this article.. not my problem. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.36.162 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:59Z

William Bosak

[edit]
William Bosak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Police officer killed in line of duty. With respect, WP:NOT a memorial. Deizio talk 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hesitant Delete. Fails WP:BIO, but if the case that convicted his murderer was the source of some sort of case law or was a particularly public trial (which could be possible), then this article would be fine. Also, if this article is deleted, this article should be as well. PullToOpen 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That might confer notability on the incident or murderer, but not the unfortunate officer. Deizio talk 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... --jaydj 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I admit I do have a pretty inclusionist stance on such things, and not much confidence in Wikipedia:Notability (which is a guideline, not WP policy), but I think the article is hardly a goofy vanity page or indulgent memorial. Chicagoans, law enforcement officers, and hobbyist cop-watchers like myself all fall into the category of communities with an interest in the subject. I generally vote for improvement (even potential, future improvement) over outright deletion. If nothing else, I like being able to click on each and every name in an article. Full disclosure: I'm also the guy who wrote the articles about both officers and their murderer, Kenneth Allen. Ford MF 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ford, what should qualify a police officer who has been killed in the line of duty for inclusion in Wikipedia? Obviously (and unfortunately) many police officers are killed in the line of duty. One every 53 hours or something to that effect. Who is not included? --jaydj 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a small "wiki within the wiki" that has taken a particular interest in certain cases of murdered police officers. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi. The articles are well written and well researched. Some are poorly cited. Some are truly notable. Does this particular officer belong in the wiki? Over 500 police officers in the US alone are killed annually and I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place to catalog and memorialize them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaydjenkins (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The "500 officers" statistic is misleading. The overwhelming majority of those deaths are accidental(mostly traffic accidents). Outright murder represents a small portion of that figure. And of the small minority of police officers who are murdered in the line of duty, Bosak and Schaik are further unusual in that they didn't die as the result of a struggle with an arrestee, but at the hands of an assassin who deliberately targeted police officers for murder. Highly unusual. As a reader of Wikipedia (and true-crime nerd), I personally have no interest in guys who accidentally shot themselves while wearing the uniform, or housing cops who slip and fall off project roofs. But I generally find murder pretty fascinating, regardless of any consideration of a more global notability. As a kid I always read encyclopediae for articles that interested me; I don't think it's unreasonable to assume I'm not alone in that. Ford MF 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I based that number on a link from the Rodney Pocceschi article. The number of officers in the US who were feloniously killed in 2005 is 55 and 57 in 2004. --jaydj 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are they braver or more dead than the 100 farmers killed when their tractors rolled over, or the miner or construction workers who die on the job? Edison 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe so and am not changing my delete vote. There are lots of people who died in a renowned situation. Teachers murdered, millions murdered in racial cleansings. --jaydj 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being killed in the line of duty, even assassinated, does not IMHO automatically confer notability. Think of how many police officers are murdered in the line of duty across the world every year. The entire article is devoted to describing how he died. This potentially makes the murder notable (although I don't personally think so) but does not make the person notable. He's still got to pass WP:BIO. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not crazy about WP guidelines in general, but even in the WP:BIO article it says only one criterion need be fulfilled, and the last one on the list is: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. Ford MF 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hardly think the subject here fits the spirit of the assassination point. If there is a newsworthy event here then write an article about the event, not the non-notable people involved in it. I've written more on the Rodney P listing up-page. Deizio talk 11:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteIt is sad when police die in the line of duty. It is sad when railrod personnel or utility linemen or roofers die in the course of their work. But Wikipedia is not a memorial. The article does not include any press coverage whatsoever, and only has 1 source. Provide multiple independent and reliable sources, which might exist in the newspapers of the state where it happened, which give substantial coverage, and I will change my vote. Edison 14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That many policemen are killed is not a basis for deletion. The article should be kept if this particular death produced significant news coverage, which I would guess it did, but the article needs some indication of that before I can support keeping it. JamesMLane t c 19:41, 24 December 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:56Z

Dan Cederholm

[edit]
Dan Cederholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's widely known in the web development community, and has written several books and contributed to the web standards movement. The article is rather sparse, but that's better than having fluff in it instead. Jordan 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems plenty of semi-reliable sources attesting to notability. However, all those links are external and don't have a Wiki article. I always find in-line external links smack of spam, but they are easily fixable I suppose. Bubba hotep 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. A quick search reveals hits and at least 3 books that he has written. Someone who isn't me should cite them and clean it up :) --jaydj 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reviews to show his books are important. No independent sources to show he is well known. The attestations of an editor are not sufficinet to show notability. Edison 14:44, 20 December 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, WP:CSD#G7, author requested deletion. Deizio talk 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New World Rock

[edit]
New World Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The official website link is listed right on the Wiki page. Please look at that website first. GreenMantis 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — GreenMantis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response: Yes but your web site doesn't establish notability for the movie. Take a look through WP:N and its various subpages. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the site is on a free server, we're 14, filming a non-profit show. We're not miracle workers. GreenMantis 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't MySpace. It's not a place to get started - it's a place for people that are already established. Like I said, read WP:N and also read WP:V. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you're all acting like it has to be declared by the president to be official. We aren't getting started here, we've been started for a quite a while now. GreenMantis 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by now you've realized what kind of standards WP demands of content and understand this is going to be deleted, we can put this to bed right now (WP:CSD#G7}. Otherwise you get 5 more days of smart comments. Deizio talk 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all want to act like you're so much better than everyone else? Go ahead and delete it. Nobody actually comes here anyway

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guerrilla Cadets

[edit]
The Guerrilla Cadets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article fails WP:BAND and notability guidelines. Only 656 searches on Google for "The Guerrilla Cadets". Also reads like an advertisement. The external link leads to a page in MySpace!? Sr13 23:51, 19 December 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. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Davis

[edit]
Deborah Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion by Gkklein. No reason specified. My opinion is Neutral. Previous AfD here. Tevildo 13:25, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_19&oldid=1234118797"