Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decemyriagon[edit]

Is this polygon useful?? Georgia guy 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source, but Keep The article lacks sources, but if they're added I have to say keep.Gan fon 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with cleanup. ~~Seems like a useful article, but~~ Needs cleanup and more references. –Llama man^{sign here} 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and source, per Ganfon. "Useful" is not a requirement to be here, and just because it may not be doesn't necessarily constitute a candidate for deletion. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a polygon with nothing special about it except the fact it has a lot of sides. No sources, and the only ghits I get are from Yahoo Answers questions about the names of really large polygons. Therefore, if there was a guideline about shapes' notability, this wouldn't pass. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean consistent with other articles on specific types of polygons (see Polygons). Soltak | Talk 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are an infinite amount of polygons, every polygon does not deserve an article. If there are multiple nontrivial sources that will verify content establishing some sort of notability then an article could be created for that particular polygon. I'm sure there are plenty of materials to cite an article for an octagon, a square, and a dodecahedron, but I dont think you can justify an article on a decemyriagon. -- wtfunkymonkey 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go through the list at Polygon and merge all of those whose article is a paragraph or so, like this one, into a single article called something like List of non-standard polygons or the like. Interesting and sufficiently encyclopedic to justify a list article but not to sustain a separate article. Otto4711 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources (keep). I'm a bit skeptical myself, but I'm sure there are sources out there for this. P TO 01:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list article together with other notable polygons from Polygon per Otto4711. I suggest calling it List of notable polygons or List of interesting polygons. Article needs sources. 70.49.96.132 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already went through this for Icosihenagon, and this one contains no more information than that. It makes statements like "angles on a regular decemyriagon measure almost exactly 180°" which is inexact, and is also listed in Polygon (via a simple formula to compute the angle). It gives an etymology which isn't even right (it lists "polloi," which isn't a part of this word), and finally it says that it is possible, but complicated, to produce one with a compass and straightedge, which Constructible polygon leads me to doubt most severely. So, all of the info that this provides that isn't in the main Polygon article is dubious at best. We ought to delete this one. If people think that having the measure of the interior angles explicitly listed is important, we can just add a column to the table in Polygon. --Sopoforic 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Upon further review, this polygon cannot be constructed. That part of the article is just wrong. I'm removing it. --Sopoforic 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mk. II: I also removed the bad link to an image that was never uploaded, and the comment from the bottom of the article. With the false info removed, this article contains nothing not already on Polygon, except the etymology, and I don't think that the etymology alone justifies an article, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Sopoforic 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 3: Neither JSTOR nor google scholar give a single hit for this. Every page in the first five pages of google results is of the form "what do you call a big polygon." No results on google news. Mathworld doesn't have an article on it. Good indicators that this is not notable. --Sopoforic 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source/expand. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you are done changing things there will be no article left! Let's get rid of this before it spreads and we get a decemyriaicosapentagon (100025 sides....) --N Shar 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sopoforic. Big top 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polygon. This article simply gives a definition, see WP:NOT#DICT. Agree the Polygon article should contain a list of polygons (or there should be a List of Polygons) rather than giving them separate articles. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Polygon does have a list of polygons--not every polygon, of course, but at least the most interesting ones. We can't list them all, and the number of polygons that are notable is quite small. There's nothing in Decemyriagon that isn't already in Polygon, so there's nothing to merge. --Sopoforic 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon. There are countably infinitely many polygons, and the higher number of angles you have, the less interesting they become. JIP | Talk 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sopoforic Avalon 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wtfunkymunkey ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sopoforic. Terence Ong 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. you can translate any number into Foreign and state that a polygon with that number of sides is called foo, but that doesn't make it in any way useful or informative. This is as bad as the made-up phopbias and philias. 27 unique Googles outside WIkipedia, all of which seem to be variants on "this is what a polynomial with this number of sides would be called, if anybody cared enough to make one". There is, of course, no evidenbce that anybody ever has cared enough to make one... Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosihenagon - I might lean towards keeping the article if a source were provided, but all I can find on Google is trivia-quiz-type lists of all the polygons. Given that we don't have articles for all the numbers, I don't think this merits keeping. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polygon. No content worth merging. PrimeHunter 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to polygon. 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Polygon, there really isn't much in the way of content here.--Isotope23 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is an infinite number of polygons, and they can all be created by determing the correct prefix and tacking it on to "-gon". But that only generates a dictionary defintion. For this particular polygon, there is nothing more to be said beyoind the dicdef. -- Whpq 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon, per above Bucketsofg 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. As per Whpq, there are most likely an infinite number of polygons available which would make the list too long. In addition, this polygon is hard to visualize as with an interior angle almost exactly 180°, the legs on this polygon would have be of sufficienct (read very long) length so as not to cause this polygon to become a rectangle. Ronbo76 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a useful article, a list would be a mistake too because there could be millions of polygons in the list ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems unlikely that there is any interesting property or history that can distinguish this polygon from most other six-digit regular polygons and save the article from its current dicdef state. —David Eppstein 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into Polygon article Mcr616 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fixable. No need to delete. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about it is fixable? I've already removed the false info. The problem is that there's nothing left but a dictionary definition after doing that, and it doesn't look like there is anything else that can be added. --Sopoforic 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The statement about the angles is true, to a greater or lesser degree, for all polygons with a lot of sides, and is not specific to this polygon. My guess is that the article title is a neologism. The only information in the article is basically a dictionary definition of the number, and naming of polygons generally, not this specific polygon. So we have a dictionary definition of a neologism containing only information about something that's not the subject of the article. If someone later wants to create an article containing information specific to this polygon, it's still possible. Fg2 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources proving notability given As it stands the article is an unsourced stub with no reasons given why this type of polygon is at all notable. The only reason to keep it is if a published source actually refers to this polygon in some notable way. Dugwiki 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Badly formed invented word; there is no Greek word decemyria. Even if you wanted to combine Latin decem and Greek myrios, you don't do it like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 08:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere close to the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), the closest notability guideline. CMummert · talk 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the 1K and 10K sided. We just don't need that many. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization[edit]

From the first sentence of the article: "This is a listing of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal counts if the countries of various International organizations pooled their medals." However, medals are not pooled according to international organisations. I have no objection to such a listing in someone's userspace, but it does not belong in the article namespace. This is unencyclopedic trivia. A ecis^Bravado 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article apparently survived AFD once before, in August 2004. -- Plutor ^talk 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That doesn't invalidate this current discussion, does it? That previous discussion took place during the Games themselves, when nationalistic emotions were running high. Andrwsc 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, nor did I mean to imply that it did. If I thought it did, I would have voted keep instead of simply commenting. I was simply pointing it out for reference. -- Plutor ^talk 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- A ecis^Bravado 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gan fon 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any relevance nor do I know or foresee any similar page for other Olympics. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to this article, four other similar articles (2004 Summer Olympics medal count for Central Asian countries, European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita, and 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita) all ought to be deleted for any number of reasons, whether it be WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or even WP:LISTCRUFT. They seem to survive AFD when the discussion takes place shortly after the Games, when many new editors get involved and put nationalistic pride ahead of common sense. Hopefully, this discussion will conclude that articles like these are not encyclopaedic. Andrwsc 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per nom and Andrwsc. → JARED ^(t) 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Arjun 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer: I've seen these Olympic medal articles but the things are usually in a template form. I'dd say the precendence are telling me to keep it. But my wiki rules on referencing are saying delete. Needs referencing! --CyclePat 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge with existing articles. Per nomination. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Andrwsc, feel free to nominate the other lists. Punkmorten 08:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, pure and simple. - fchd 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research and POV forking. I've redirected the other articles Andrwsc mentioned; if anyone still feels they should be completely deleted as well, please feel free (they're not exactly the most useful redirects...). -- Jonel | Speak 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, per nom. Terence Ong 13:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not OR since the medal counts for international country groupings are discussed in the press and in scholarly papers. NPOV is not an issue here, nor is POV forking. This is a good way to present the information, because if not we get the same list every four years with the US, Russia and China in the top three. That doesn't tell you much, does it?--JJay 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one does group them this way. The medals are in another article. Barring that, most of the countries are in the UN, so having it there is pointless and confusing. To put it in perspective, sure, having my phone number on wikipedia along with my friends could be helpful, as I would fine them disorganized in the phone book, but does that mean we should have them here? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but some people do group them this way. Such as the EU, which held a press conference to discuss their medal wins at Athens. [1]. Asean medal wins have been analyzed in the Journal of Sports Economics [2]. Etc. To put this in perspective for you, people do care about grouping olympic medal wins. They then go onto to publish the results. That allows us to do these types of lists, which are no different really than lists such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour. Why do it? Because unlike your phone number and that of your friends, people actually are interested in the topic and find the information useful. --JJay 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that's sourced can be mentioned in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article, like I just put the EU claim into it. Until I see a reliable source that pits the UN against the G8, I'm going to maintain that this table and others like it are original research. The paper about the ASEAN nations does not do that; it merely says that southeast Asian countries don't do well (and gives suggestions on fixing that). It doesn't sum the medals of those nations anywhere, nor make any mention of other international organization's results. -- Jonel | Speak 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to press or scholarly papers that discuss these groupings? Does the IOC or any reliable source publish such a list? Such a list might sway me to keep, but even then, it smacks of indiscriminate information. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bucketsofg 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless shown to not be original research. - Aagtbdfoua 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom: "medals are not pooled according to international organisations:.--Yannismarou 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay Jcuk 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see my rationale in response to Jjay. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research, POV Fork. Resolute 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i'm from a country which is a member of the ASEAN and APEC, and such international organizations are political/economic in nature. my country hosted the latest ASEAN summit and sports was never in the agenda. so i'm for deleting this article. this article has very little chance of getting into the ASEAN summit coffee tables, unless the Beijing Olympics will have a direct effect on the Southeast Asian economies. --RebSkii 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because most Int'l Organizations have nothing to do with Olympics -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pjuggle[edit]

Having been started by a user with only one edit and whose username is identical to the article title, there is a definite conflict of interest here. Dubious notability, and since I am not an expert on juggling I am bringing it here. —EdGl 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kukini 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Self-promotional. Gan fon 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only references are his own sites and a forum. Fan-1967 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the article (that's my attempt at a pun. It's bedtime.) The JPS ^{talk to me} 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Doo doo, doo-doo-doo doo doo, doo doo doo. JuJube 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this individual "appears regularly on the variety programs of Univision and Telemundo," it should not have been difficult to find independent verification to establish notability. If the entry is recreated later on with some third-party sourcing, I might vote differently. Zahakiel 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article 1. is hard to read and very sloppy 2. doesn't give good information. I would definitely say delete this article. Chickyfuzz123 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bucketsofg 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:COI. Ronbo76 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is like a user Page but its written as an encyclopedia article. Definitely delete or transfer info to the users User Page if it's describing his/her self. Tellyaddict 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -cant help but agree with all.DUBJAY04 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shameless self-promotion. Philippe Beaudette 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason why this article should be here. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ah, vanity pages. If I could find more of him online, I'd be tempted to slap on a 'weak keep' and a cleanup tag, but as it is he's not as notable as he makes himself out to be. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7. No assertion of notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood Garage[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable garage. John254 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this garage is so notable, how come there are no google hits referencing it, only car repair shops? Surely, someone on the web must have gone to this garage and wrote something up on it, in news or a blog or whatever. Anyway, with no sources and no verified claim to notability, delete it. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wooty. Gan fon 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wooty. Soltak | Talk 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted, article contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Circle.org[edit]

Not a notable website, spam. Naconkantari 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~The man is notable~~, the website is not. Simple as that. Gan fon 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading through Evan's article, he isn't that notable either...plus both articles are unsourced. Gan fon 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per nom. Not notable. Same thing as Ganfon. Big top 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. —dima/s-ko/ 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Non-notable article that reads like an ad and this wiki as a webhost. Ronbo76 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely Spam. Tellyaddict 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Keep I removed the spam that the idiot that wrote it put in. Keep it if you want, or delete this one. I don't care. User: C. Evan Sackett 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete' - Non-notable. Spam. Philippe Beaudette 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete Its spam. It should of been tagged with a speedy deletion. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, probabbly self-promotion (the creator's username is Visual Circle). FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I prodded this. A number of users claiming to be Evan Sackett are simultaneously creating AND vandalising articles about him, it's ridiculous.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of whom, FYI, is User:C. Evan Sackett above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 3 DVD[edit]

There has been no attempt to merge the content into Final Destination 3, which was the decision of the first AFD over two months ago. Per the tag, "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." For a valid merge result this time there should be evidence that this is being carried out adequately. The Final Destination 3 article is a mess, but copy and pasting this trash into it will not help.
The reason for deletion is the same as its first AFD: fancruft, and special edition DVDs do not need their own pages. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, once all the fancruft is lost, I reckon this could be cut down to one four-line paragraph. The JPS ^{talk to me} 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. People shouldn't make false promises to merge, if it never happens. Wikipedia isn't a DVD guide to special editions. RobJ1981 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, unless someone actually merges the articles -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's obviously not important enough for anyone to go to the trouble to merge, so just vape this cruft. JuJube 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft.--Jersey Devil 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Delete Is someone going to merge these two? Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this time. No redirect, if the content fails to be merged into the parent article. ~~no merge.~~ --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft, DVDs of films will get a mention in the film's page. Terence Ong 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to exist separate of the film article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point there has been more than enough time for a merge by any interested parties.--Isotope23 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is why if a consensus is reached on an AfD, someone needs to do it themselves. As no attempt to merge has been made, it should be cast away. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but can we copy the content to Final Destination 3's talk page so someone can still use it one day? --Arctic Gnome 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because DVD version of a movie is not notable by itself. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Ten[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted, simply because there is another page with the exact same content. See Network Ten, and with the official name. See it's official website, "Official Network Ten Website". I believe that if this article is deleted, the information from it should be merged on to Network Ten. It is clearly very obvious how these relate to each other, Channel Ten and Network Ten are very similar, Network Ten is like the mother of Channel Ten. The both have the same shows, logos and slogans, why not just delete one and merge the extra information from Channel Ten onto Network Ten? Surely you don't think that a primary channel needs a page of it own, that can be properly described on Network Ten.Shaggy9872004 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles themselves clearly tell us that Channel Ten is about the television channel and Network Ten about the television network. Even were the articles duplicate articles, deletion would not be the proper solution. Uncle G 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has different content from the Network Ten article even though they are related and article seems to be in reasonable shape. Merger may be possible but better canvassed on talk pages. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content is demonstrably not the same (although it might be worth reviewing both articles in case some editors have mistaken the two), and as above editors have mentioned the Network and the Channel are not the same thing (that is, the Network runs Channel Ten and numerous affiliates). --Canley 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content is very different in the articles, Network Ten is the parent, Channel Ten is one of it's products just like Southern Cross Ten. Firelement85 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The two pages used to be merged. User:Stickeylabel split the two articles; one for the company called Network Ten, and one for the television network it operates. He did the same for Channel Seven/Seven Network and Channel Nine/Nine Network. --Tntnnbltn 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW DXRAW 07:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what's the difference between Channel Ten, Network Ten and TEN-10? There's three separate articles on this, and none explain what the other is very well. JROBBO 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs more explanation as to how these topics relate though ThrustVectoring 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy Keep, failing that, re-direct to Network Ten and it would be a good case for Channel Seven/Seven Network & Nine Network/Channel Nine to do the same if the consensus for this article was either delete or merge. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in any event, because the presumptious title of the article is specific to the channel 10 in only one country and untrue as for channel 10 in other countries. It should say, perhaps Channel Ten (Australia). Edison 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Bucketsofg 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a good rewrite because it seems the same as Network Ten ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are distinct differences between Channel Ten, Network Ten and TEN-10. The first sentence on the TEN-10 article even states that it is the callsign of Network Ten's flagship Sydney station. CanWest Global Communications is the main stakeholder of The Ten Group, who owns the network called Network TEN, which operates one main nationwide channel called Channel Ten, and also a digital only channel called the Ten Guide. I believe there aren't enough articles for Ten in Australia yet, as we don't even have a The Ten Group article yet. Network Ten and Channel Ten are two completely different things. Network Ten manages affiliation to Southern Cross Ten and various other regional operaters, they also are in charge of the five metropolitan Network Ten stations. They manage the purchasing of programming and many sporting events, they also manage Ten News. Channel Ten is merely a channel that is a collection of programming, that is bought and created by Network Ten. Stickeylabel 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets my notability guidlines. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Network Ten, then turn into a disambiguation page. TRKtv t c e 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename "Channel Ten (Australia)". I've never seen a network television channel shown in several major cities up for AfD before. --Oakshade 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Network Ten and Channel Ten are different things -- as per Stickeylabel's justification. Australian Matt 08:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I see a lot of "I like it"s and zero evidence to address the concerns of those recommending delete. I also checked out the article and I noticed there was no reliable non-trivial secondary sourcing... infact the only source was the website for the event. For those reasons I'm going to delete this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi Championship Series[edit]

A recent tournament that isn't very notable. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint (which was a recent tournament for a title shot), the PCS article doesn't need to exist. Relevant information can be listed relevant wrestler articles (if needed). RobJ1981 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The SD sprint wasn't a tournamnet, it was a series of Beat the Clock natches. TJ Spyke 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... Come on, who cares if it wasn't for a title shot, I still think it was a fun event and I'd like to see this reference of it kept up. Smoke Rulz 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It does have slight value... Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better sourcing, although the ones that exist do check out. Participants are also notable. RiseRobotRise 10:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was noteable on TNA tapings, and it lasted quite a long while. The participants are also very notable, some of the best talents that TNA or RoH have to offer. TakerVersion1 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bucketsofg 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The PCS just ended last night, and no title shot was awarded. A trophy was handed out, that's it. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every wrestling tournament. WWE has had tournaments last for weeks before: it doesn't mean every one of them should be here. RobJ1981 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be just notable enough ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Does not appear to meet notability standards. Soltak | Talk 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and comments above.--Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leave this page, the tournament was memorable especially for the return of wrestling legend Bob Backlund. Talk 21:48, 15 January 2007
Delete per nom. Most of the Keeps seem to be of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. Resolute 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've suggested on the WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page that it would be a good idea to look at possible ways to provide some sort of episodic information on wrestling shows in general. Possibilities might range from year-in-review or month-in-review style articles to articles focussing on multi-week storylines (like this one). The hope is to find a way to provide episodic information for wrestling shows similar to episodic information for other television series, but without getting into match-by-match or show-by-show details. Whether or not this article is kept in the short term, in the long term I think it would be prudent to find some consensus on how to handle this sort of information to bring wrestling show plotlines and other television show plot lines closer together in how they are presented. Dugwiki 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, one more thing. The reason to possibly keep would be because it is essentially a multi-episode synopsis of a notable television series. Since individual episode articles about notable television series appear to be generally accepted, you can reasonably argue that wrestling shows are essentially the same thing (only with more episodes per year). The flip side is that you might also argue that many of the episode articles for other types of television series should be deleted too. Either way, the main issue is one of being somewhat consistent in approaching how and what information about a television series to include in Wikipedia, and for wrestling shows what might eb a good, maintainable way to provide some of this sort of information. Dugwiki 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tournament differed from standard wrestling tournaments and culminated in the TV return of Bob Backlund, amongst other things. TheDingbat 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make a notation in Bob Backlund. The tournament does not deserve its own article. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of my comments on the Smackdown Sprint AfD and the reasons listed above. I also feel that this unsourced article lacks the ability to be verified as strongly as Wikipedia requires even if someone were to put in the time and effort to look for sources. -- The Hyb rid 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A potential source of references would be official news articles TNA produced about the associated individual shows and PPV. I'm guessing a little digging on the TNA website would provide most of the verification you need as to what happened. Dugwiki 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A unique event that was held for several weeks and even had the finals on a PPV and featured Bob Backlund. It justs needs better sourcing. TJ Spyke 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I feel that this is a noteworthy artical. It would be best to keep it because they might have more than just one. Big Boss 0 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs don't work like that. If there had already been more than one, then that would be a good vote, but since there hasn't been it doesn't apply. It is like voting to keep some garage band because thay might make it big someday. -- The Hyb rid 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not all that notable, and can be referred to very briefly in the individual wrestler pages if necessary. --Dave. 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As stated above: most of the keeps seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. Bob Backlund was a judge for the final: so what? If we listed every tournament that featured a big name as a judge (or wrestler), Wikipedia would be flooded with cruft. RobJ1981 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable wrestling tournament. The WP:ILIKEIT comments don't seem to take into account encyclopedic notability, they seem to be focussing on something that may be notable to a wrestling fan. One Night In Hackney 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly Notable in my Opinion. It appeared on Two Pay Per Views, as well as lasting several weeks on television. All Characters hold encyclopedic notability in their own right, and the event was pretty Unique. In fact, it was the first, and maybe last of it's kind. Pvegeta 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It was a significant event that took up much television time and featured notable participants. This isn't "some garage band" that no one has heard of. This is a series of vignettes and matches that people are interested in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisfs120 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 January, 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This was undoubtably talked about TNA angles done. You could also consider to the point of TNA's internet phenominom, as I'm sure if you look through Youtube files they are the most watched TNA segments. These skits will be talked about for years to come. Whenever Kevin Nash is brought up, people will remember his rise when he signed with WCW but his huge fall when he returned to WWE. However, Nash actually winning the fans back so late in his career will always be thought of. The PCS challenge specifically. And that is far, far more important that many tournaments listed. Besides, it's just plain fun! Why do you have to ruin it for others?Crispen Raw 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As per the deletion of Smackdown Sprint, the PCS isn't that notable. Just because wrestling fans like it, doesn't mean it's notable enough for wiki. Put it on a wrestling wikipedia. Do you realize, if Wikipedia had every wrestling thing you liked on it... it would be flooded? Fact: there is other sites on the internet for information on wrestling and it's events. RobJ1981 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This needs to be kept. It was a significant part of wrestling over the past few months. If tournaments for TNA were kept in the past, then this should stay, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.3.245 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January, 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Kris Classic 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, although I'll point out, Aaru, that your own recommendation at the top was "Delete per nom". I fail to see much difference between that and a "Keep per above" recommendation, so you might want to follow your own advice....Dugwiki 16:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure thing. --Aaru Bui ^DII 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The majority of the votes to keep have been ridiculous, unfounded, and based solely in opinion. Whether or not one enjoys TNA has absolutely no basis on whether or not this article should be deleted. Further, precedent (i.e., Smackdown! Sprint) clearly indicates that this and similar articles should be removed. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote one of the policies, Consensus can change. While precedent is useful, there is a larger open question of handling articles regarding episodes and stories in television shows of all types. Some editors favor greatly reducing the amount of episodic information for all shows, while others apparently want additional storyline information available for certain types of shows such as wrestling shows, soap operas and reality shows. It's possible (or at least hopeful) that in the long term a reasonable consensus can be reached on handling information for all TV series across the board, and that the consensus will be to allow some (but not all) articles about plot lines or linked-episodes for regular weekly serials.

So personally I see this afd as a short term debate. Regardless of whether or not this article is kept, in the long term we'll probably need some more thorough guidelines for handling episodes, etc. Dugwiki 17:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This is nothing like the Smackdown Spirit. This is the talk of the Internet wrestling community!

Strong Keep: The reasoning for deletion is invalid. The "Smackdown Sprint" was just a series of matches to determine a number one contender. This was more of a tournament, albeit a very unusual one (which might warrant its presence alone). It was obviously more than just a storyline (like other tournaments), involved multiple pop culture and professional wrestling references, and will likely return in future years due to the positive response it has received. Clint 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While a lot of the keep responses seem to be "I like it", some make logical cases. Likewise, several of the delete responses are either "per nom" (for a description that includes a terrible comparison, imo), as well as an argument of non-notability. Notability here seems to be very subjective, as in the majority opinion it is notable, but there are a significant number of people arguing the contrary, with no real evidence either way. I think a bigger problem is establishing what qualifies as notable and why.... Clint 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Keep it. It was a fun touranment and was very enjoyable to watch. It wasn't just wrestling. It was part comedy too and most wrestling fans enjoyed it, so that's all that matters right?

Comment: Sources/References and more external links to announcements/etc. have been added.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense, arguably an attack page. NawlinWiki 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. hensi[edit]

No sources, and Google searching turns up no support. You'd think that something like this would get publicity, cause a recall of Miller beer, or something - if it wasn't a hoax. Which is what it smells like. Note: PROD tag removed without addressing concerns or providing explanation. FreplySpang 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eradicate. Either a hoax (most likely) or original research otherwise. --N Shar 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search on google news for 'miller parasite' turned up nothing, so I'd say it's a hoax. --Sopoforic 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax-DE SU 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwljelte- oops, won two many Miller's, the parasites arrgh rodding my brain. SkierRMH,06:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider sending it to WP:BJ. YechielMan 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThrustVectoring (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note, given the almost-slander sound of this, and absolute lack of proofs, it might be worth shooting this one now. 68.39.174.238 13:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Moccia[edit]

Contested prod. Serious question on Notability. There may also be issues with WP:AUTO or, at minimum, WP:COI. Despite major cleanup by author, still looks less than neutral. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for an article of this title, but the earlier AFD seems to be for a different person. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this guy's associated ventures are notable, and no sources are provided per WP:BIO. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, still reads like an advert. Flyingtoaster1337 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 300 odd web hits for "John Moccia" dont convince me this guy is notable. this appears to be the most applicable hit. John Vandenberg 09:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seem to be at least a few people of the name, including a screenwriter who wrote one episode of a TV show, so he gets a number of hits on IMDB, tv.com and mirrors. Fan-1967 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--Wehwalt 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add proper sources by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned bu other users it has no notability at all. Tellyaddict 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Pants (card game)[edit]

Vanity nothing. Wikiepdia is WP:NFT not for something made up in high school one day. 2005 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"Vanity nothing" is correct, as there is nothing vain about the article in question. This article is not about vanity, and this card game is very popular today. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean anything. I've removed the credits to the authors, but I fail to see the point of that as one's creations deserve to be credited. I agree that Wikipedia is WP:NFT, but only if whatever happens to be "created in school" doesn't actually come to fruition.[reply]

You invented a game. Fine. Play it with your friends. The Wikipedia is not here to publicize your game. 2005 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. --Davidbober 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Whatever, I tried. Delete[reply]

Speedy G7 (author requests deletion); let's close this discussion quickly. --N Shar 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Carmichael[edit]

Non-notable wrestler. Pugs Malone 23:53, 20 April 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xcellery (second nomination)[edit]

Recreation of advertisment for non-notable software. Artw 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery for what happened to previous less well-formatted version --Henrygb 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed on Salesforce.com and featured on Lifehacker.com, thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE's requirement of multiple non-trivial independent mentions. --Pkchan 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep Article reads more like an advertisment, lets see if this article can turn up better sources, and better writing. (although this editor dosn't think bad writing is grounds for deletion). Author of the article is also the Founder and CEO of Collaborall violates WP:COI. RiseRobotRise 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup to remove advertisingness. Bucketsofg 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite passes notablity but reads like an ad ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article is related to software that is in development but needs an expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs)
Keep Article was re-written to fix above complaints. --Rlaemmler 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by Rewrite to remove advert. Philippe Beaudette 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article is free of advert. Please indicate otherwise. --Rlaemmler 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Removed wording: free-of-charge and available for subscription. --Rlaemmler 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who is in charge of accepting the content and removes the deletion part? --Rlaemmler 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An administrator (there are many) will complete it when the WP:Afd process has run its course. More information can be found here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. John Vandenberg 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards delete. I'm not familiar with the websites the sources are from; I'd like to see sources from reputable websites are added, or evidence that those sources are notable. John Vandenberg 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a quite reputable source: Listed on Salesforce.com --Rlaemmler 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rlaemmler, this process is a mixture of a show of hands and a long winded debate, and you do not need to proceed your comments with "Keep" -- the admin who closes this review is already able to clearly see that you believe the article should be kept. If you think that "Xcellery" is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend you stop trying to justify its existance here. Instead, go read the verifiability and notability guidelines --- and then focus on improving the article. In regards to your comment that SalesForce is a reputable source: normally it would be, however SalesForce is in the business of selling Xcellery to its users, so using them as a source on this article is only desirable to verify that they are business partners (which is how it is being used currently) -- all other statements from SalesForce are tainted by the sweet smell of crisp greenbacks.

So, the problem is that at the moment this article has a "References" section full of blog posts, which is unacceptable. The only one that looks reasonable is ezinearticles.com, _however_ the author is Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall, maker of Xcellery [3], and to make matters worse is he has only posted one story in the magazine [4], which demonstrates that he was not wearing another more impartial hat when he wrote the article. I dont mind if this references stays as a way to quote the CEO's opinion, but it definitely needs to state that the author is the CEO.

What we need are independent articles in tech magazines; i.e. reviews by people unaffiliated with Collaborall and Xcellery, whose sole objective is to inform their readers. John Vandenberg 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, thanks for the information. I'm new to publishing an article on Wikipedia and I try my best to fullfill the required quality standards. I already rewrote the entire article twice trying to remove any smell of spam or advertisement. SalesForce is not selling Xcellery for Collaborall. SalesForce offers a platform called AppExchange which allows 3rd parties to publish applications integrating into SalesForce. In order to be published a quite intense app review must be passed. SalesForce doesn't earn anything and is a partner not a reseller. --Rlaemmler 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rlaemmler, am I correct in assuming you are Reto Laemmler, CEO of Collaborall? If so, you really need to go read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before doing anything else on Wikipedia.

Back on track, can you see that SalesForce is in the business of selling a service; they have included Xcellery as part of that service, which is a small claim to notability. However as their business profits from the software, any statements from SalesForce about the product need to be taken with a grain or two of salt when used for verifiability. So, we need more credible sources that verify the facts on the article. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes I'm Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall. I just took a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Very interesting and I will stop commenting from now on forward. I do respect all your feedback and will simply try to improve the article rather then justify it. --Rlaemmler 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, see also the article on Lifehacker.com. The website may look like a blog, but is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, so should be treated as a trustworthy source. --Pkchan 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for pointing that out, I was merely going on first impression after glancing at each referenced page. The Wikipedia article for Lifehacker.com indicates that the site is leaning towards being an advertising medium, but the fact isnt backed up with a source (I've edited the article to request citations). On further inspection of the lifehacker article, Im convinced that this isnt suitable, as it states "According to the [XCellery] site ...", which indicates that the author has not actually used the software. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat II[edit]

This article is about a future season of a reality game show, and many anonymous editors have been using this page to post nonsense, and information that is not cited, failing WP:V. ALL IN 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nonsense article, CSD:A1, with no context provided, CSD:G1. The article lacks sources, WP:CITE, and does not assert or attempt to provide any notability, WP:NOTE. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawing nomination by myself. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Megiddo[edit]

Article about a report from the FBI that targets religious groups. The FBI produces hundreds of reports like this every year, and this specific one doens't appear to be notable. No coverage by reliable sources; a Google search reveals all coverage by non-notable government-tracking, conspiracy and other partisan websites. Article was originally a copyvio of this page; the author simply replaced some phrases and words from the original page when this issue was brought up. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked fbi.gov for source, but "Your search - Project Megiddo - did not match any documents." Clearly WP:RS and WP:V. --Davidbober 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above claim is misleading. Google search 'Project Megiddo' turns of the official FBI doc at a US gov site. (gpo.gov.www.fbi.gov - pdf file) shown at the following Goggle cache - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Invalid nomination : Report was covered by numerous sources such as this Oct 21 1999 AP Story, this commentary in The New American, commentary on gunowners.org, and partisan source [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869 WorldNutDaily]. The FBI even issued a press release in response to an article about the report that appeared in USA Today a highly unusual occurance speaking to the controversy this report created. Anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis could find dozens more sources. The nomination's claims of the FBI producing hundreds of 'reports like this every year' is unfounded speculation. I'd like to see some documentation of just how many reports 'like this' the FBI 'produces every year' to back up these speculative claims. It is my understanding that this report caused significant backlash against the agency, and that they were more circumspect after their noses got bloodied by maligning a group with considerable clout. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a widely covered news item during the run-up to Y2K. Dragomiloff 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination since FAAFA has produced coverage from at least one reliable source - the AP story is enough for me. My apologies. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Neo. The article is just a stub anyway, perhaps you would like to help add to it. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, no need to wait five days given overwhelming consensus below. NawlinWiki 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of British Columbia[edit]

Non-notable provincial party in the province of British Columbia. In the 2005 provincial elections, it achieved a whopping 0.01% of the total popular vote. Because of this, there is nothing notable about the party. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you checked all the results going back to 1945 or prior, or if doing badly in one election makes an article deleteable- in which case we should delete Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for winning 2 seats in 1993. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)I think it's existence makes it more than "notable".[reply]

Keep. There are 47 pages in Category Provincial political parties in British Columbia and there is no reason to make an example of this article. --Davidbober 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep branch of the notable Communist Party of Canada. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it is currently a micro party, it has historical significance. Bucketsofg 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep During its heyday, it was fielding candidates in a third of all the ridings. Political parties that maintain a tangible presence over the course of several decades are definitely notable. Caknuck 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada won no votes at all in the last federal election. Should this article be deleted too? Ground Zero | t 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid deletion rationale.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important part of Canadian working class history. --Mista-X 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ground Zero. --GreenJoe 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a properly registered political party in any jurisdiction is notable enough, regardless of their electoral performance. --Canley 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on historical lineage[5], not for being "properly registered" which has low barriers to entry[6]. Bwithh
Keep. Disturbing to see this AfD, and the recent one for the Sex Party, being based on popularity. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite being a minor party, it history is quite significant, definitely notable. A number of parties have received few votes in recent years, and are they all supposed to get deleted? Terence Ong 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bwithh. Resolute 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a registered political party. Their performance in an election is not relevant. Notability is not the same as popularity or fame. -- Whpq 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this party wishes it could this kind of support at the ballot box. Given the long-term history of this party, even if it were de-listed as an official political party I would would still say it is encyclopedic. The only difference is that it would then be an article on the political history of British Columbia, which is still encyclopedic. Agent 86 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not successful but notable ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appropriate for encyclopedic content. Philippe Beaudette 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason to delete it. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - established political party with a long history and no shortage of third-party references. —Psychonaut 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There might be nothing notable about their individual candidates, but any officially incorporated political party that has run candidates in any election is fully entitled to an article about the party. Bearcat 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction[edit]

Delete - Stachecruft. Completely unencyclopedic. Otto4711 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though some of it could be merged back into moustache. I do however, think that the use of cruft as a reason for deletion is inappropriate. There are better ways to express the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you have GOT to be kidding. JuJube 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We deleted Category:People with facial hair, and as a poorly annotated list, this article provides nothing more. Additionally, the articles for individual styles of moustaches already list famous persons with such a type of moustache. This is unnecessary duplication, and with less value due to being less well-categorised. --Sopoforic 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic list. JIP | Talk 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with merge of some info into the moustache article. And now off to nominate Image:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg for the 4/1/07 "picture of the day ;) SkierRMH,07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful (not ridden with OR and POV) content into Moustache. --Dweller 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, WP:OR, nonsense. Terence Ong 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is just one of more than 150+ lists of fictional objects / people on Wikipedia. See here. Why is this list different from any other? They should all stay as they provide useful summaries of the treatment of the subject by artists and writers through history and across cultures. Lumos3 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia sections, like moustaches, can be either cut off or trimmed. This one should have been trimmed. Gazpacho 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Bucketsofg 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic trivia. No indication of what is a "notable" mustache. It is a list with questionable basis for inclusion and of possibly indeterminate length. Just because other equally bad lists might exist does not justify the existence of this list. Agent 86 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just trivia ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective (against the recommendations of WP:LIST. Chovain^(t|c) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept as large number of keep votes and nominator abstained stating that they suspected it was notable. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MasterCraft[edit]

This article was prodded with the explanation "Notability not established, although requested since June 2006." I found the prod and removed it because I suspect that this company is notable (I have seen their boats). I abstain from this one. N Shar 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Per the company Web site, "MasterCraft is by far the largest producer of inboard ski, wakeboard and luxury performance powerboats in the world. It sells boats in 25 different countries and has over 100 domestic and international dealers." It's the official tow boat for the IWSF Water Ski and Wakeboard World Cup and seems to be, judging by a quick search, the boat of choice for competitive water skiers. Caknuck 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious, Strong Keep and expand. Clearly notable, as I noted when I de-prodded it yesterday, before it was immediately and improperly re-prodded... The article needs much cleanup, yes, but it's clearly worth having an article on. Georgewilliamherbert 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the article talk page. Notable company. Needs cleanup. -- Ben (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Well known and notable company, though I have never owned a boat I know of the company. EnsRedShirt 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MasterCraft is huge in the North America recreational boating industry, absolutely notable enough for Wikipedia. Someone will get around to expanding this eventually, I'm sure. -/- Warren 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGet off your lazy ass and go to you local Canadian Tire and buy some tools to fix up your house which is probably falling appart because you can't get away from wikipedia. Yes! Every minute in you life is actually timed by looking at those swivelly signatures of yours, which happens to contain your local time. Your life biography... but you got a pee... oh just one more click... just one more afd... Oh! Wait... You mean MasterCraft the place that makes boats. Oh! Sorry. Never heard of them... meuh! indifferent. delete or keep. --CyclePat 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Expand: My current task is to expand the article Mastercraft, since Mastercraft boats are great. I do think this article can be a major piece of Wikipedia if it is expanded and has more information than just a sentence. So, tell me if you feel as if you do not want me to try to make Mastercraft a better article (I don't see why not, but yeah...) Chickyfuzz123 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does have an international presence - the non-English ghits is evidence; and they are well known in 'auxiliary'/related activities (water skiing, fishing, etc.). SkierRMH,08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no one's actually voting delete here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Bucketsofg 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a rewrite though ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above comments.--Jersey Devil 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Crite[edit]

Doesn't appear to be particularly notbale, article looks like self-promotion. Artw 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete IMDb shows the subject's documentary "For Love of Liberty: The Story of America's Black Patriots" to be in production at Showtime, with an expected airdate early this year. Google doesn't seem able to verify the subject's other claim to notability (winning an award at the New Mexico Film Festival). Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL (pending the airing of the doc). Caknuck 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a bio of a person who is not majorly famous, maybe in some areas but not worldwide. Think it's probably best to delete it; Tellyaddict 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't currently pass notablity requirements ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be willing to reconsider once the subject documentary has been released. Something "due for production" doesn't really get me excited. Philippe Beaudette 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily euthanized a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanize me[edit]

Has not even recorded a demo. Evidently not significant in any way. Article creator's username suggests he is the drummer. Andrusi 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable to the owners of the garage that they play in. SubSeven 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Universally unknown band that's only been around for a month. Most likely a vanity page. Metrackle 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should have been speedied as db-band... Formed in Dec 06., not even a band yet (missing a few people!). Marked as so. SkierRMH,08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metrackle ThrustVectoring 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly lacks significance.zadignose 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Advertising seems to have been mostly cleaned up and notability has been established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generation YES[edit]

Educational corporation. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement Dragomiloff 05:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:N and I cant see a problem with WP:CORP. John Vandenberg 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an article in USA Today. RiseRobotRise 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an advertisement which seems to be slanted to make the subject look more notable than it is.--Wehwalt 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Cleanup: This article does give, for the most part, good information, but it needs a lot of cleanup till it is up to Wikipedia's standards. Chickyfuzz123 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a significant problem with it. Philippe Beaudette 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the cited sources and they appear to be either directory entries or reprints of press releases. Nothing whihc passes the non-trivial, independent test. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. You may have misread the US Dept of Ed page which (rather poorly) lists a group of programs; however, the organization at hand was listed as one of two ever cited by the federal education agency, which oversees 1000s of schools, as exemplary. The other citations are each articles from known and respected publications. I have included a new citation to a publication ED wrote specifically about GenYES to reinforce the significance of their acknowledgement. Being recognized by the US Dept of Ed as exemplary is about the highest form of acknowledgement any education company in the US can recieve. -Freechild 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also shocked that JzG reviewed the cited sources and found nothing indicating verifiability and/or notability -- they were clearly journal articles and government publications, albeit missing {{cite}} formatting. In any case, most of these sources have now been clarified. One that still stumps me is the ISSN of "Educational Leadership". John Vandenberg 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that ISSN, but can't get the syntax right- can somebody spot me? - Freechild 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient evidence above proves the validity of this article. - Freechild 02:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitor[edit]

Educational website. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Significant number of hits for "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics", however I couldnt find any reviews by major news websites. John Vandenberg 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as above. Philippe Beaudette 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" has been covered on All Things Considered ([7]), referenced by BBC News ([8]), and recognized by PC Magazine ([9]). Tim Smith 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Douglass Otto[edit]

County party chair, failed congressional candidate. Not exactly WP:BIO material. PROD tag added, but removed by User:DGG on the grounds that running for office imparts sufficient notability. I say that merely being a party hack doesn't. Calton | Talk 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll let the article speak for me... "Otto is perhaps best known for his insistance on upholding high ethical standards in government and insisting upon fiscally responsible budgeting." Caknuck 03:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High ethical standards and fiscal responsibility? No wonder he lost. Delete. Otto4711 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't really find any evidence on this guy's notability. However, I will change my vote if it does turn up. If he did win in any State on National election, I will change to keep. RiseRobotRise 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't hypothesize his notability. We need evidence. It's lacking.zadignose 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, needs more sources for WP:BIO Alf photoman 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally nominated this for speedy deletion, but the admin claimed that it was not a candidate. Check the history for their reasoning. J Milburn 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No compelling evidence of notability in the article. Assuming no improvement by the end of this discussion, consider redirecting to whichever page is appropriate for his Congress candidacy, per WP:C&E. If no page exists, delete. Eludium-q36 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As I recall, isn't consensus generally that just running for Congress is insufficient to prove notability? And that's his most impressive one. --Gwern (contribs) 21:10 18 January 2007 (GMT) 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoi khoi 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Oltu[edit]

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as how Clevelander and Nareklm have been the primary contributors to the article and are in favor of deletion, I have a question. Is there a chance that the articles for the battles can be expanded further? Are there casualty figures? Can maps be drawn up? What military units were involved? If these questions can't be answered and the article cannot be expanded much further, then forks are unnecessary and I'd support deletion. But if we can expand upon the articles enough so that they can stand alone, then I favor keeping them for the time being. Nareklm & Clevelander, any comments? Thanks, Caknuck 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well there isn't much information and the only references are in Russian basically only, I tried searching about this in books no results came up. Nareklm 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, there is very little information on the Turkish-Armenian War. The exact number of casualties (both Armenian and Turkish alike) for the entire conflict has never really been ascertained. -- Clevelander 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article? —The preceding OttomanReference 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well these articles have no references or any official credible or English sources, the topic seems important but theres no information on it or in books some references would help. Nareklm 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One explanation for Clevelander's position is that Armenian sources may have a bias for this period, as they lost the war. I 'm not an expert in this period, but it bothers me to delete any item (especially if they do not contain misinformation). It also puzzes me, why someone asks for deletion at the end this is an electronic medium, it will not cover space on someones desk :-). I strongly believe; it is not a good policy to act on deletion request. People can search for Battle of Oltu and they can find this page, get basic information (dates, sides, result) and if they want it will link them to main campaign page. OttomanReference 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Actually, I used non-Armenian sources when contributing this article. -- Clevelander 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkish-Armenian War. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event, kick started the Turkish-Armenian War. RiseRobotRise 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The initial article was much the same as the summary in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But the new one has much more detail. Armenian-Turkish articles are always ticklish to keep neutral, so the drafting is often slow. --Bejnar 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - notable. The Turkish-Armenian war is not well-documented and good source material can be hard to find, which is all the more reason for us to make the effort to expand this set of articles. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable.--Yannismarou 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event. —dima/s-ko/ 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close The nominator has withdrawn can someone close this already? Nareklm 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoi khoi 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarıkamış (1920)[edit]

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - definitely notable. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 14:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoi khoi 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kars (1920)[edit]

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per only 39 google hits [[10]] and most of them are copy pages of wikipedia's. This "battle" sounds made up to me. Chaldean 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Turkish/Armenian war suffers from a lack of documentation, but this is a genuine and notable event. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 14:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoi khoi 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alexandropol[edit]

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although not decisive, it was significant and a part of history. Thus, it should be kept --TommyOliver 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, and "not much of a battle" isn't a good enough reason to delete the page. As with the other articles on similar subjects nominated for deletion today, it would be better to work on expanding this article than to delete it. --Squeezeweasel ^talk 14:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Iris moment"[edit]

Non-notable Internet neologism, no indication that this is notable or passes WP:NEO. Seraphimblade 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; does not appear notable, and has no reliable sources. Yuser31415 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 150 ghits, ~~fails~~ defines WP:NEO. Caknuck 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable neo. Fan-1967 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cuz everything feels like the movies. JuJube 03:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that applies is actually Wikipedia:No original research. This article purports to document a fad. It cites no sources, and I can find no sources already documenting this fad. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is not the place for documenting the never-before-documented. Delete. Uncle G 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can find no reliable secondary sources for the etymology given, since this appears to be a non-notable neologism, so this isn't verifiable, and constitutes original research. I think that sums up every argument, yes? --Sopoforic 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly a significant cultural phenomenon even within the limited context of what's new on youtube this month, has no reason to treat it is notable.zadignose 10:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I love the song - it sits proudly near the top of my iTunes playlist - but this is a totally non-notable neologism. Lacks reliable sources to meet WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1ne 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MBA BIOTECH[edit]

This nomination includes:

Non-notable; reads like an advertisment. Yuser31415 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Sole link on Google Labs was already deleted by Google for a TOS violation, ergo my !vote. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-spam. JuJube 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wuts that ham[edit]

Non-notable Internet meme started by the author of the article. Prod removed by author after he changed "meme" to "joke", claiming that negated the prod. JuJube 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --- RockMFR 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR CoI non-notable cruft. Unverifiable self-indulgence. Wikipedia is not a web host. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a bad picture from a video game, but, well, it doesn't warrant keeping an article for a picture. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon. --Sopoforic 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Wuts that ham" also gets 0 Ghits. JuJube 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused highway[edit]

term apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article. A companion article was twice submitted to AfD (as Ghost ramp) before being moved to a similarly-named place and will soon accompany this in AfD. Delete. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the prior [11] [12] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who actually proposed the deletion. At no time was there a complete discussion as to the validity of unused highway. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. It's been discussed prior that his closure was proper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have a link to the deletion review? B.Wind 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- With no supporting evidence from B.Wind or a statement why it should be deleted, I move that it be speedy kept. This is also getting old; I propose a hold of six months before another AFD can be filed. Discussions can be held, but there is no reason why we must have duplication of tags, AFD banners, and all the assorted stuff cluttering the page and its histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think a such hold can be done though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
    - "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
    - "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the first nomination of an article of this name for deletion, not a renomination; therefore the above argument does not apply. B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you chose to read [13] [14], you would see that as a result of the last AFD, it was decided to move the page to unused highway. Therefore, this AFD is the third in the series. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the article's past afd's, after examining the article it is pretty clear that it should be deleted as being unverifiable original research. There are two references in the article, however neither of them ever use the term 'unused highway.' One does use the term 'stub ramp' once, but the term isn't defined and its meaning as given in the article is inferred. Without any valid sources this should go. --The Way 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a tautology, I don't see how it is that hard of a concept to understand. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; "unused highway" is a simple phrase like "list of cities" or "fauna of Puerto Rico". If you have a better phrase that covers the same scope and is either an obvious phrase or defined in a reliable source, please suggest one. --NE2 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a better idea: if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. The so-called "tautology" cited by Seicer is not the case here, as a revisitation of the term will make clear.B.Wind 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ODOT calls it a stub. Similar to stub ramp. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does ODOT call it an unused highway? B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stub street, same thing. Do you propose that we now move Unused highway to stub street? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that an "unused highway" is a highway that is unused needs no citing. Would you like me to cite dictionary definitions of "unused" and "highway"? --NE2 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think he'll be satisfied with any ruling. I'm finding sources to be safe so that this nonsense can be ended for once and for all. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found many sources that pretty much defines the term in usage; therefore, will you please withdraw the nomination and spare the rest of us this repetitive process? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Seicer; folks had a problem with the term "ghost ramp", and insisted on "unused highway"; now they want to kill the entry entirely on that basis? Many of these ramps were mentioned previously in separate highway entries. This article serves to collate the data. As for original research, most of the items are cited with either supporting documentation or satellite photos that serve to verify the assertations. That hardly qualifies as original research. --Mhking 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep maybe merge with closed highway or some other legal term from the Highway traffic act or more technical term from a jurisprudence. --CyclePat 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here are a couple references that could be help the referencing of this article:

Leasing of Closed Highways Regulation, Alta. Reg. 36/1986
R. v. Sanders, 2004 NBPC 12 (CanLII) (a trial about using a closed road and or closed highway)
HIGHWAY CLOSINGS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 599 (Law about sign, and how to close a road and who can)
R. v. Strachan, 1995 CanLII 1323 (BC C.A.) states "It appears from the material that was put before the sentencing judge, that at one point the police found it necessary to close Highway 5 north of Kamloops in order to ensure the safety of any motorists who might be travelling in the opposite direction to that of the chase."
PUBLIC HIGHWAYS ACT, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-13 states "Every person using a highway closed to traffic in accordance with this section does so at his or her own risk and the highway authority is not liable in any action for damages resulting from the use by a person of a highway so closed to traffic"
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 states in section 134 that "Driving on closed highway prohibited."
Barrie (City) v. 1606533 Ontario Inc., 2005 CanLII 24746 (ON S.C.) a case that specifically talks about an used highway. (note this was the only thing that came back for this term) --CyclePat 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is borderlining on a bad-faith nomination. If this article needs a different name, then that's okay -- bring it up at WP:RFC to get some outside input. AFD is not the place for such a discussion, though. A quick Windows Live search on "unused highway" turns up some U.S. state government web pages dealing with legislation, so the term is out there. -/- Warren 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we speedy keep this since the article now has a bijillion citations towards every term, word and letter? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Sometimes Wikipedians have to come up with an article title themselves, if there is no globally agreed upon term. If a consensus emerges that a different title is better, then it can be renamed (again), but this needs to be kept in some form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who really needs a definition of "unused highway", or a banal discussion of the various obvious reasons why one might close a highway? This isn't a phrase that needs definition - put "unused" and "highway" together, and they mean exactly what one might expect. I can perhaps see a list of notable unused highways - considerable stretchs of major highway that have been closed, are unused, etc. - but why define or discuss such a commonplace phrase? What's next - "broken sidewalk"? "Muddy path?" --Brianyoumans 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So... you are in agreement that the definition is a tautology. Therefore, your position would be more in agreement with keep rather than delete, since both pages contain relevant information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how this is in any way a tautology. I am saying this is like having an article on "blue bathrobes" - which is to say, bathrobes which are blue. This combination of words has no special meaning, and neither does it define a subject which needs an article to explain it. Brianyoumans 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would a merge, rather than a delete, be more appropriate? The List could be merged into the primary article, with a brief overview (per what is there currently) to explain the different types? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, as Brian has already mentioned, this term is not a tautology. Secondly, even if it were that would in no way imply that the article should be kept; there is no policy that says tautologies are inherently notable, the very idea that something's being a tautology somehow makes it encyclopedic is ridiculous. Also, as Brian argues, there is no reason why 'unused highway' is any more important, encyclopedic and notable than 'red cars,' 'unused airport runways' or 'broken sidewalks.' The term is probably even unsuitable for Wiktionary. If there are notable unused highways then feel free to rename this to 'List of Notable Unused Highways,' that is if you can establish clear and objective criter for determining the notability of such highways and the topic (eg. find sources that state that this particular unused highway is important because...) --The Way 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (Edit conflict) Per the last two AFDs and extensive discussions, the choosing of the word is the most appropriate terminology as it is the most _direct_ and _simple_. It's unfortunate that you were not a main participant in those prior discussions (per standard search, please correct if I am mistaken), because those discussions led to the renaming of the article. Renaming it again, or moving it to satisfy your definition or idea is simply spinning the wheel, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominationswasting everyones time and resources --
        
        "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
        
        "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination."
        
        Per this AFD and the corresponding duplicate, a rough consensus has been made to keep the article since it has satisfied B.Wind's original criteria --
        
        if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination.
        
        Any further discussion from that initial discussion is going off on a tangent (per what Brianyoumans started above) and is not inclusive to this AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that some of this could be merged to highway or some other similar place, as a description of what one can do with unwanted highways. I don't think much of this is useful for helping define what a notable unused highway is. One could of course use it to categorize the unused highways, but I'm not sure how useful that would be - how many highways have notably been turned into gardens? I think that would be up to the editors of the list, as to whether that would be a useful scheme of organization. Brianyoumans 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the problems with this article are not specific to the article's title. You want a 'catch-all' for the information in the article, but I, and I believe the nominator and Brian, feel that the information itself isn't encyclopedic; it's not notable. The fact that a highway is unused does not make it notable. --The Way 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what he said here --
  - "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
  - It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
  - Then, he amended the AFD to state --
  - "if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
  - Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic topic. Looks like a term coined to link together a number of completely un-related bits of tarmac. - fchd 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and dare I say it, for the only encyclopedic reason that matters, which seems to have eluded all the "keepers" and most of the "deleters" here). This article is nothing more than a dicdef and a list of examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a core policy which defines what it means for Wikipedia to be what it is. It is not negotiable. Zun aid ©® 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you suggest then, that all lists be deleted, along with all corresponding pages that feature definitions from reliable sources? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Wikipedia? It is negotiable, that's what the polls, AFD debates, etc. is for. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per above --71Demon 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP per Seicer and above. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
Then, he amended the AFD to state --
"if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is heavily referenced with official sources, is written well enough to convey the essence of the topic, and the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion. Anyone disagreeing with that last statement should read the article on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike sections to see how much can be written about a highway that is now unused. And to anyone seriously debating the notability claim should remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - "it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias". In other words, sure, it's a slightly obscure topic, but articles exist for much more obscure topics than this one. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no "vote". Obviously this is just another in a long line of highway-related nominations (both the first two "ghost ramp" nominations and a number of others) that's going to end in no consensus. Obviously, it is a neologism coined by NE2 (I've never heard these referred to as "unused highways" before), but the term makes sense, and was done as a compromise for people who thought "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" were neologisms. I feel the concept of whatever you want to call this phenomena is notable, for much the same reasons TMF stated. -- NORTH ^talk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Subject is encyclopedic. Name is a compromise based on objections to "ghost ramp", which is in fairly common use but hasn't been documented (to my knowledge) in a sufficiently reliable source. Existing title is a self-evident English phrase, which needs no explicit definition. --EngineerScotty 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obviously sections of paved roadway (and ramps and tunnels) which were built but not yet placed in service, or which have been removed from service. Tax dollars were spent on them. They are used for making movies and disaster drills. They tie up resources. The only dispute I can see is over what to call them, and that does not reasonably lead to deletion. There are multiple verifiable and reliable sources presented in the article to show it is not "unverified original research." Edison 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (most recently) Edison and EngineerScotty. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Closed Highway appears to be a more poppular term which is even used, most recently with our Big North Eastern Winter Storm of January 2007 that we are currently experiencing, on the weather network. Again, as per my above vote to keep, I would merge to "Closed highway"... a term as I demonstrated within the precedence that is used by Police during chases. It is also a term that is used during "accidents" involving deaths, or serious truck spills, or many other incidents where Police decided to "close" a highway. This term has many legal implications as well... if you where riding/driving on a "closed highway" vs. a "highway". Smarten up! By taking a look at the nominator's user page, it is obvious he has a general grudge for compound worded articles. Two word terms do exist and can be used in wikipedia... like Cheeseburger and Motorboat which used to be two words. Sailing ship, Aircraft carrier, Human sexual behavior, The Light at the End of the World, Comparison of layout engines, Prophets of Islam are all compound worded articles. Should those be deleted. This is boardering a lack of wikipedia goodfaith and the ability to discuss improvements to an article. I vote that the nominator should do 1 week of work for a case at WP:AMA... "A couple of wikirules, must learn you!" "A Category:AMA Requests for Assistance visit must you!" --CyclePat 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very encyclopedic transporation topic. --Oakshade 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid, albeit underdeveloped, topic.-- danntm ^T _C 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Seicer, EngineerScotty, et. al.—HowardSF-U-T-C- 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways[edit]

Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. This article was originally kept (as Ghost ramp) in an AfD; a second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who proposed its deletion when he moved it to the current name. A move back to "ghost ramp" would not be appropriate since the list has expanded well past its original meaning and contains abandoned road structures (and some road structures never built) that are not ghost/stub ramps. B.Wind 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the prior [15] [16] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
- "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
- "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was the first nomination of "List of unused highways" under that title; therefore the argument above does not apply. B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you chose to read [17] [18], you would see that as a result of the last AFD, it was decided to move the page to unused highway. Therefore, this AFD is the third in the series. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this separate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway? --NE2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have not had as much experience at opening AfDs as other editors.B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway (these two AfDs should actually be linked) --Mhking 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond the technical considerations, this seems like a well made and useful article. Other than the title of the article, what is the reason for deletion? Citicat 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a duplicate of unused highway. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list article needs some love & affection in getting its focus together (and a case could be made for splitting it by country), and if it needs to be renamed, then get that sorted out. Deletion is out of the question, though -- this is interesting stuff. -/- Warren 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Are you debating the name of the article or the content? I see no reason to delete the article, and you've given no reason. If you feel that the name is not appropriate for the article then by all means change it, or discuss it on the talk page. wtfunkymonkey 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close AFD! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
  - There is no need to, if the user states Keep, the tabulation is valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a valid keep criterion. MANY useful things are excluded from the 'pedia through various policies and guidelines. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
  - There is no need to, if the user states Keep, the tabulation is valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many times are we going to go through this? --MPD^{T / C} 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
  - But a rough consensus is all that is needed, the tabulation is therefore valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of notable unused highways and set some criteria for inclusion; there are an awful lot of unused or disused ramps in this world, or small sections of unused highway. Probably should be split between ramps and highway sections, using some criterion. --Brianyoumans 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely noteworthy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Wasted Time R 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Delete (Ignore the tangent I'm about to go on and skip straight to the encyclopedic reasoning: Good grief!!! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that every unfinished ramp of every highway in the world is that important that they have to be assembled into a list?) The question here is notability. While in general major highways that actually exist are considered inherently notable, unused/unfinished ramps/portions of said highways are not notable in and of themselves (they do not automatically inherit notability from the parent highway), nor are unfinished highways notable. There is no demonstration of "multiple third-party reliable sources" documenting these phantom highways, thus no evidence of notability has been shown. Another question is that of "level of detail". The content of this article/list goes to an extremely high level of detail, IMHO to a level that an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. Let the encyclopedia give an encyclopedic "arm's length overview" and keep the minutae out of the 'pedia proper. Zun aid ©® 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, the question posed was -- "Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway on why the original argument was solved, and why his second recommendation was also solved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term is indirectly referred to in this article, California Highways, where it speaks about proposed bypasses that followed an alignment of streets or other proposed highways. Ronbo76 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am indifferent on the [[unused highway AfD, but this list seems helpful enough. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This continuing spree of AfDs is getting rather pointless. --EngineerScotty 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why remove verifiable information? Yes, it is boring, dull, nerdish... But so what?-Doc^g 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per multiple references. Not all highway project that are started are immediately finished, leaving sections of road which go nowhere. Likewise bridges and ramps get built but are never connected to anything, or somep time passes before they pare placed in service, or they were formerly in service but have been isolated pending reconnection or demolition. I can't see what the issue is other than disputing the verifiability and notability of individual ones. Edison 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, Doc G, Engineer Scotty, et al. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as there is no valid reason listed for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, 14-year-old who has written 5 unpublished stories. NawlinWiki 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Snell[edit]

The Article is merely just a self-promotion page for User:Sengfire; Fails WP:Notability; Speed Deletion Contested ShadowJester07 ►Talk 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, no notability whatsoever under the guidelines. No external coverage, etc. The article even comes out and admits: "Not many people have heard his name." Crystallina 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. --Sopoforic 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:AUTO as a copy of User:Sengfire's user page. SkierRMH,07:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesing[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unsourced content - urbandictionary is not a reliable source. Prod tag and Prod2 removed. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: If a term like Homie can have an entry, this one should also, since it is in fairly common use. In its current incarnation, however, this article would need a lot of work (i.e., sourcing for statements like "Current research suggests that..." Whose? And where can we read about that? The current references cited make no mention of etymology, unless I missed something. Zahakiel 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. The other content claiming an origin in a town in Ohio looks questionable too. This was a common slang term in the 1970s and maybe can be transwikied to Wiktionary. Dragomiloff 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename, or Merge The concept of a jones is well-entrenched in American culture, and is referenced in innumerable ways. One joneses for heroin, but one can also jones for a Big Mac. Per the naming convention, should probably be the root form of the term. Alternatively, merge into Jones. Concerns about its being a dictionary definition call for improvement of the article, not necessarily deletion. --Ssbohio 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References? Bwithh 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The derivation in the article sounds like a hoax, and this is a dictionary definition; I don't see how you would expand it - famous jonesings? Notable people with joneses? Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Withdrawal/DO NOT MERGE inaccurate and hoax content [19]. Having the "jones" and "jonesing" has long been related, and specifically, to heroin, and later to withdrawal symptoms from heroin/crack cocaine or other addictive drugs[20][21][22]. Current article looks like some kid made it up. The historically significant origins are in heroin addiction, not the loose use of the term in other ways today. If we knew more about its origins (Merriam-Webster doesn't),there might be more for an article rather than a dicdef. The actual withdrawal/addiction symptoms are better treated under separate articles with proper naming especially as the withdrawal symptoms referenced are for more than one kind of drug (and different). There's a Chinese expression "to eat opium" which is widely used to as a common expression "to really enjoy oneself", but if we were to write an Wikidictionary article on that, we wouldn't focus on going to the amusement park etc. Bwithh 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. This word (in both the "craving" and "taking without permission" senses) is already covered at the Wiktionary entry. If there is any truth to the etymology provided here, it can be discussed further in Wiktionary. --Metropolitan90 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cross reference to Wiktionary I checked the spelling I needed by being lazy and looking it up at the first link I had on my list. How many others will do the same? To grow something, people will have to WANT to use it. The easier it is to use, the more people will use it. Keeping a brief citation with a cross reference for more information makes everything easier to use. Always a good thing. DennyWrites 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment was posted by 71.52.178.149 (talk · contribs). The signature was then modified by DennyWrites (talk · contribs). Got some spam about changing someones signature. I didn't change a signature. The only thing I'm guilty of is not logging on before I hit the enter button. Saw the mistake and corrected it. Yes, it's my damn IP and my signature.DennyWrites 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a dicdef and should be at wiktionary, not here. Eusebeus 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removing the unsourced text and replacing it with a general explanation of the word, it's uses and context. Perhaps may be better suited to wiktionary but I agree that it is at least as common as Homie. --Bigbrisco 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now[edit]

This is described as a pilot for a show but there are no sources to back it up. The IMDB profile [23] for this is very scarce and just lists characters. Google is pretty unhelpful because there appears to be a bunch of songs and albums with the same name. I'd say delete as unverifiable and lacking reliable sources. Metros232 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current text of the article was copied verbatim from a page on tv.com. Conveniently, they've got a small forum for it; apparently the pilot was on YouTube at some point, but the show never aired. I lean toward Delete, but I don't know of a WP policy for unaired shows. --Raeven0 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but on the basis of notability. There are scores of pilots every year and even of those that air only a few are notable (and in almost all cases they only air if there's a short run ordered, 6 or 13 episodes at minimum). If IMDB is not usable as a source (versus usable as proof of notability, consensus is that it isn't) then there are a lot of articles in trouble. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the issue with IMDB is that it's not always necessarily reliable. It's almost like a wiki but perhaps just one notch above it (editors submit to "database managers" instead of completing editing themselves. Metros232 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DHartung. Eusebeus 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:IAR here, the article is completely unsourced, see WP:CITE and WP:V, the keep votes looks to be in a WP:ILIKEIT or I heard of him view so discounted, if the article provide enough reliable sources it can later be recreated. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Mishlove[edit]

reads like a resume, the subject appears to have edited the article from 208.13.131.55 (talk · contribs), does it meet WP:BIO? WP:V? A Ramachandran 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify, the only person to receive a PhD in Parapsychology in the US seems to be notable (the question is if this is also good publicity for the Colleges involved) Alf photoman 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It is vanity right now, but it could be a useful article. There is enough in it to establish notability assuming that the claims this individual is making are true. --64.230.127.40 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I've heard of this guy, and I'm not deeply involved in his subculture. He's written a couple of books of some note. The subject meets the notability threshold, in other words; the article just needs to be re-written. BTfromLA 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete His claim to be the only person is not supported by the evidence. According to Dissertation Abstracts, there are at least 44 other people with theses on this subject. (searched under parapsychology as a word in the citation or abstract) Not all of them are PhDs, not all are US universities, but the majority are. He is not even the first: there was one at the University of Oklahoma, 1977, 7815383AAT . (As for the reputation of the schools, many of the theses are anthropological, some are slightly disguised , and a few seem to be by believers.) I have adjusted the article for accuracy in this respect, but this lends a certain amount of doubt to the rest of it. The Psychology Today article is RS, but not enough for notability. The strongest claim to notability is the television program. I can find that the show exists, and that tapes of individual programs are cataloged by a few libraries. Everything else about the show seems to derive either from sources linked to the subject, or blogs. DGG 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any dubious material should be removed if can't be confirmed. But the inclusion of unsourced material is not grounds for deletion of the article--you've satisfied yourself that his TV show exists, his books are real (I have seen "Roots of Consciousness," which is a sort of encyclopedia of the paranormal--several titles by him are listed at Amazon.com) and he lectures around the country (I frequently see his name posted as a featured speaker when driving past the Philosophical Research Society building, here in Los Angeles). I think he's clearly notable enough to merit an article. Also, though I'm not up to doing the research to get to the bottom of it, it may be that his claim about the PhD is that he actually received a degree in parapsychology, as opposed to writing a thesis about the parapsychology to earn a PhD in a discipline like anthropology or sociology. If that's the case, then his original claim may well be true. BTfromLA 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that really would make him notable, because UC Berkeley does not have such a department. Only US university that does is Duke. He must have materialized the department temporarily. Diss Abs specifies the field as "Psychology", but they use whatever subject term the author of the thesis used. So he didn't claim parapsychology at the time. They have many theses on line, but his is too early. Now that I think of it, the courses which use his textbook are probably his own, because that's what he teaches in his university. Having a TV show and publishing books makes one notable only if the show or the books are notable, and there is no independent sourced evidence for that, about either of them. His name as a featured speaker on the building of his society/university is not exactly 3rd party evidence. The evidence about his notable list of speakers is on the site for his show. He also has a long list of stations that have his show, and he himself has said it, but nobody else. So what is he notable for, exactly?DGG 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as an author and media pundit on parapsychology and related topics. He is a long-established and fairly widely published figure in that field (while it may be dubious to consider parapsychology as a "field," there are organizations, journals, etc., devoted to it, so I think we need to give it the benefit of the doubt as far as inclusion in Wikipedia goes). The Wikipedia threshold for notability is low, compared to a conventional encyclopedia. One doesn't need to be an historic figure to make the cut. We need to guard against his self-edits being used for deceptive or self-promotional purposes, but that doesn't mean deleting the article. BTfromLA 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot vouch for the credibility of this, but for whatever it's worth, here's an online image purported to be Mishlove's actual Doctoral degree in Parapsychology, with a little description of who was on his committee, and how it was possible for him to create such a degree through an interdisciplinary program that Berkeley offered at the time. BTfromLA 09:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goertzel[edit]

According to the deletion log, this article was deleted at VfD, later re-created and speedied, then protected from re-creation, then a Deletion Review endorsed the second deletion but removed the protection. It has now been re-created again; it reads somewhat like autobiographical material and appears to have been copy-pasted from one of the previous versions – Gurch 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't help to notice that the image was uploaded without copyright status. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as re-creation of previously deleted article. Well-published, but none of his works seem to be widely recognized. --N Shar 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is notable because of research, has been published, etc. but article is terrible. Needs to be cleaned up a lot. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, has been profiled in WSJ[24], ~100 Google Books results (only a few his own works). Tag for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to HardOCP. Yuser31415 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KB Networks, Inc.[edit]

This is the company owns the HardOCP web site; their only notable venture is the web site, which is popular in the computer hardware enthusiast community, but the company itself fails WP:N. -/- Warren 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HardOCP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Morven ThrustVectoring 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect works for me. Seragenn 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in North Africa[edit]

Contested Prod. Article started with blatant soapboxing, OR, POV. After that was removed (when Prod was removed), what's left is an unsourced text dump of an interview, apparently copied from here. Not a copyvio, as the page grants free reproduction permission. Nothing remotely encyclopedic.Fan-1967 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails, as far as I can tell, nearly all wikipedia guidelines. Article does not abide by wikipedia standards, guidelines, style of writing, or formatting. A proper article *may* be able to be created on this topic, but from where I sit the article is unsalvageable in its current form. The article needs to be scrapped and perhaps, at a later time, the author could strive for a stub quality article that follows established wiki guidelines. wtfunkymonkey 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source of the article is a website that, based on their home page, could never remotely be cited as a Reliable Source. I have reverted edits to Christianity based on the same material. Fan-1967 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment; I find it interesting that this article, called Christianity in North Africa, seems to be about Muslims. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps getting chopped and re-edited. It's about claims that 6 million muslims a year are converting. Fan-1967 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the subject could prove worthy of an encyclopedic article, this sure as spod ain't it. Delete unless it improves to something that doesn't froth at the mouth by the close of this afd. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay or rant. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wot, no Saint Augustine? Doesn't do what it says on the label. Just a soapbox rant. Nothing here to save even for a stub. --Folantin 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christianity in Africa, which should contain info on North Africa. I don't really see anything here worth merging, though. --BigDT 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christianity in Africa --Doc^g 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good article could be written on this topic referencing St Augustine and Coptic Christianity amongst other topics. This isn't it nor does it provide the basis for such an article. For now, it should be redirected to Christianity in Africa which itself requires extensive work. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christianity in Africa, which should contain a section called "North Africa". When substantial material accumulates there, then the article should be split off.Bless sins 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above. There are certainly grounds - both historical and cultural - for establishing a split between the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa, but this needs to be expunged. Eusebeus 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on FOX commentator pairings[edit]

I added an {{unreferenced}} template to this page about a month ago, but no reliable source has been produced. It only cites dbsforums.com, which is an internet message board with no editorial oversight. I looked for a reliable source of this information and could not find one, and I believe this information is unverifiable and/or original research. This page could also be considered an indiscriminate collection of information issue, because I question the importance of having a list of every TV commentator of every single game in 13 years. Khatru2 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a good article to have one here but it does needs to include 2001 onwards to presentOo7565 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto4711 Soltak | Talk 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its notable information if your researching broadcasting. should be expanded not deleted. --MarsRover 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content is (potentially) verifiable by reviewing original transmissions, but constitutes an indiscriminate list per WP:NOT Eludium-q36 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Cbrown1023 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy[edit]

*Nominate for deletion. Article fails WP:N and WP:COI. It contains no assertions of notability. The text is an extremely brief paragraph followed by many links to promotional materials. Looking at the talk page, the article was previously involved in a copyright conflict and the participants in the discussion make it painfully clear that the article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. Obvious submarine advertisement. This is a procedural nomination. I checked out the Inclusive Democracy materials with the intention of culturing a nice bias either for or against, but they are so opaque with academia that I failed to get very far. Drake Dun 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion for the following reasons.

(1) A week before I nominated this article for deletion, I stated on the article's talk page that I would refrain from nominating the article for deletion if it were developed with more content. Since then, narap43 has written a proper article. Technically it's a little late, but in keeping with the spirit of my promise I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion.

(2) The links at the bottom of the new article may make out a case for notability. It is a very weak case, but I prefer inclusion in borderline cases. The following two sources qualify as sources of notability under Wikipedia guidelines in my opinion:

(a) David Freeman, Thesis Eleven, no. 69, Sage Publications, May 2002, pp. 103-106

(b) “Inclusive Democracy” entry in “Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy:” pp. 732-733, ed. by R.J. Barry Jones, 2001

The following two sources are borderline, but might be considered to qualify:

(a) http://www.agorainternational.org/dnweb1.html;

(b) http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 (this one is from TouristPhilosopher)

Given these two (or four) sources there is a minimal case for satisfaction of the notability criteria. That said, I want to respond to some of the comments below.

TouristPhilosopher asks me to prove that he is associated with the ID Project. My answer is that there is obviously some connection. You registered a user account specifically to oppose the deletion of the Inclusive Democracy article. As of this writing you have not participated on Wikipedia in any other capacity. Your comments on the question of whether ID is notable are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment in whether the article is deleted or not. Like many of the people at the center of the ID Project, you are not a native English speaker, even though most of the participants in the English Wikipedia are. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.
In answer to narap43, several points. First, I never said that ID is not notable. I stated that the article failed to make out a case for notability and that its notability was therefore suspect. There is a difference. It does not fall upon me to prove the negative proposition that ID is not notable. Second, your accusations regarding my role on Wikipedia are easy to disprove by simply looking at my contributions list. Your claim that I only registered a few weeks ago is false. My first edit was in November of 2006. Your claim that one of my first acts as a registered user was to identify bias in the ID article is also false. Long before becoming involved in any fashion with the ID article, I contributed to several other, totally unrelated articles, including Physicalism, Curry, Soka Gakkai, etc. Your claim that I have declared a sole ambition to identify bias in Wikipedia articles is also false. I have no idea where you got this notion. In short, all of your accusations are either grievous mistakes or barefaced lies. And by the way, I have not identified any biases in the ID article. I challenged it on the basis of notability and conflict of interest. There is a difference. Regarding conflicts of interest, I do not feel a need to defend Wikipedia's policies, except by saying that I have nothing to do with them and they are what they are regardless of my opinions on them.

Drake Dun 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to and redirect to Takis Fotopoulos. --CyclePat 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy is notable. The copyright issue was resolved. If you do a google you can find many pages of notable citations in books, articles and academic discussions. john sargis 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the truth is that Inclusive Democracy is notable. Below you can find some links to articles with references to Inclusive Democracy.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/agm301005.html http://web.mac.com/publicresistance/iWeb/Doc%20G/Chapters.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cdna/2003/00000009/00000003/art00006 http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661 http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5065&start=15 http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/newswire/archive588.html

So i would like to ask you to stop the deletion project -right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.254.19.143 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above comment is made by me TouristPhilosopher. Now I'm registered and from now on i'm going to use my username. Thanks.

I remain unconvinced. I looked at all the links you posted and found a couple which were close to qualifying as sources, but none which made the cut. "References" do not count. Please actually read the notability policies. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." That means that people talking about it in an Internet forum, brief references, stuff that comes one way or another from ID people themselves, and stuff which talks about Fotopoulos but not ID do not count. Also, nobody has addressed the COI issue. The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people. Clearly there is a problem. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Drake Dun 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of new material, first, to give more info on the aspects of the Inclusive Democracy project and, second, to establish the notability of the article, as suggested by user Drake Dun. Also, many links to online and printed resources are given.

User:narap43 9:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Inclusive Democracy entry needed a lot of expansion from its previous “stub” form and I think that in its present form it is a satisfactory presentation of the topic. But for Drake Dun to declare that a project, which as far as I know is widely discussed within the radical Left, is not notable betrays only his ignorance on the subject. Furthermore, to argue that there is a COI issue because “The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people” shows that he is far from being unbiased on the matter (despite his declared sole ambition “to identify bias” in wikipedia when he registered as a user, just a couple of weeks ago, and one of his first acts was to identify bias in this particular entry!). It is well known that this is a general practice in Wikipedia which, unlike the “ordinary” encyclopedias, do not engage established bodies of experts to write the entries. This is particularly true of wikipedia entries on new political projects, journals etc. which are bound to be written by people involved in them (has he examined for instance the Parecon entries?). This is not bad by itself, as long as the entries are not just eulogies but aim to give a fair description of the topic. Who else is expected to have a fairly comprehensive view of a new political project like Inclusive Democracy or Parecon but people involved in them who are best qualified to write the relevant entries and then to leave it to unbiased qualified users—an extremely difficult operation anyway as far as controversial topics like politics is concerned—to suggest additions/amendments etc?

User:narap43 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Dun, i'm not an ID man. In case you still «BELIEVE» that I’m, you MUST to prove it RIGHT NOW. Unless your comment aimed to make anybody wishing to make a comment for non-deletion think twice before doing so, unless he wants to be labelled an ID sympathiser by you.

User:TouristPhilosopher 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

«Mr» Drake Dun

>>> First you write: «The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people».

>>> my answer: the meaning of YOUR words here is that you ARE SURE.

When I said that I’m not an ID man and asked you to prove what you said:

>>> you write: «there is obviously some connection»

>>> my answer: I didn’t ask you to tell us if there is any connection or better if YOU SEE or IMAGINE any connection. I ask you to PROVE WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR PREVIOUS POST — and you said that I’Μ ΑΝ ID MAN. But you CAN’T prove anything. FIRST you see an ID man, now –a day later- you see SOME CONNECTION. Tomorrow you could SEE a loose connection and after a week or month nothing. Its better to «fix» yourself with the reality and stop BELIEVING what you like.

>>> you write: «I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.»

>>> my answer: so shut up till you are sure !!!

PS1. I expect a «sorry» because you called me ID man. PS2. Your comments are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment AGAINST ID. You registered a user account 2 months ago and except some minor comments this one is your first attempt to delete A WHOLE article. Like many of the people outside the center of the ID Project, you are a native English speaker or at least speak fluent English. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people who tried in the past to delete the ID article of wiki, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter AGAINST ID. But I really doubt it.

User:TouristPhilosopher 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional factual corrections: (1) I registered my user account three months ago. (2) This is not my first AfD nomination. My first AfD nomination was for Deception in the Unification Church. (3) I have no bias for or against ID, and have never previously nominated any ID related articles for deletion. A look at my history of contributions will quickly dispel any such notions. Drake Dun 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Kaiserman[edit]

Vanity bio, kept in August 2005 after a very lackluster AFD. Very thin resume, padded with items like being "Production Coordinator" for an award-winning documentary. Created by User:Saulkaiserman, so the conflict of interest is pretty obvious. Calton | Talk 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see little real notability here; probably an interesting guy, but not very significant. --Brianyoumans 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe the closer overlooked the obvious sockpuppetry in the last one. JuJube 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, article fails to show neutral sources, problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COI require a major re-write Alf photoman 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite trying, I fail to see how this meets WP:BIO. Most things I've found don't indicate any notability. The IMDB bio pretty much sums it up. Agent 86 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Most of the redlinks would be NN as well. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philopater Wahba[edit]

non notable priest Brianyoumans 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recycled the image in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales article, which was unillustrated. The uploader (who is presumably the photographer) had licensed the image under the GFDL. Perhaps the few details in this article on Father Philopater's biography could be added to the image description page as useful background for the image? up◦land 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to show he is notable, any more than 100,000 other ministers. Edison 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete no assertion that subject meets WP:BIO or is otherwise notable. Eluchil404 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Estate Cocktail[edit]

Apparently a non-notable cocktail. My belief was that a bit of creative searching was necessary, but yielded very little in the way of WP:RS, at least as far as this particular version of the recipe goes. Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original recipes. Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cocktails-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to b:Bartending ~~Keep for 1 week or less~~ then convert to a redirect. ~~to allow WikiProject Cocktails a chance to locate more information, integrate it into an appropriate list somewhere else, or otherwise deal with it in a productive manner.~~ This one was under our radar screen (thanks SkierRMH for adding it to the deletions list!). Additionally, I request that the article NOT be deleted, but rather turned into a redirect wherever we end up moving the information to. It was pointed out to us that we need to keep the original edit history for GFDL reasons when we move information around and integrate it like we do for articles like this. If the cocktail turns out to be so non-notable that I can't find any viable information about it, I may change my vote back to a full delete; I'll let you know within a day or two. I will be happy to take responsibility for handling conversion to redirect, if that is the best option and acceptable with everyone. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kinu. No time extension is necessary. The AfD runs five days, which is plenty of time to show how this meets content policies. Agent 86 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the past I would have asked for an extension through February 28th citing the Cleanup Project under way by our WikiProject on all articles like this. 5 days is a very short amount of time given how much work the Project Participants are involved in, though I think our effectiveness at cleaning up this part of Wikipedia should be very clear by now. We are much faster at processing things now, so I chose to be conservative by estimating only one week just to try to make everyone happy. :-) Either way, deleting is definitely not the right answer (unless it turns out to be a hoax), because if any part of the article is kept (which is very likely, even if only transwikied to b:Bartending, we have to keep the edit history for GFDL licensing and attribution requirements. As I stated, the article needs to be converted to a redirect if any portion of the original text is kept, and it is likely that some of the text will be kept. The redirect would point to the new location of the moved text. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this cocktail to fit in with a new category involving absinthe-based cocktails or cocktails with absinthe in their makeup that I am working on. You may delete it, although it is an unusual recipe that is not commonly found in guides, the main reason I included it. I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it is a feasible recipe that is not life-threatening that would expand the list of cocktails recorded in Wikipedia. I think that the Cocktail project needs more input on these new designs and I can't see why it can't be included.Hotspur23 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes (for cocktails or otherwise). To be included in Wikipedia, the topic of an article needs to have more depth. The notability and importance of the drink must be demonstrated as shown by citing several reliable sources. I definitely appreciate what you are trying to do here. If this is part of a series of articles you are developing, we might be able to develop a single article that discusses these cocktails in a broad sense, and explore some specific examples. Then, if and when the article grows large enough, with plenty of good information, start splitting sections of that article into smaller, more fully developed articles. It is certainly something that would be worth discussing at the WikiProject Mixed Drinks (we just changed the name of the project to be more inclusive; sorry for any confusion). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be moved to Wiki Project Mixed Drinks and not deleted. It seems silly to delete it when there is a program to do the very thing you want to delete it for in Wikipedia. Plus it can be argued that cocktail recipes are information that can be stored in wikipedia, since they are already on record. They don't have to be famous or noteworthy (though there are recipes that are recorded in it that are); they just have to be useful. This just seems a bit trollish to bounce the article. 24.34.207.250 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 24.34.207.250, though I wouldn't classify it as trollish. :-) Kinu has very valid points for articles in general at Wikipedia. The articles concerning mixed drinks in general do seem to defy WP:NOT#IINFO, because a mixed drink, at its heart, is essentially a recipe. It's much like a chemical compound, in that the parts that make up the whole help to define the substance itself. However, with some (or sometimes a lot of) creative researching, it is possible to create a meaningful, encyclopedic article even when all you have is a recipe with which to start. (See Bronx (cocktail) for a perfect example updated yesterday.) It is success stories like the Bronx that illustrate how weak articles can, and should, be improved. This AFD process is an important part of making sure that Wikipedia remains relevant.
All that being said, I did complete my initial research into this particular drink. I was able to locate the recipe in several places, but no real information about its notability or history. Since it does seem to be popular, I changed my vote to transwiki it to the Bartending manual at Wikibooks (with which I am also an editor), and then convert the page under discussion to a redirect. Again, I stress that it is important to not delete the actual page, since even when transwikiing, it is important to keep the edit history for GFDL compliance.
I have also added a section under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Beverages Task Force/work area#List of incubating articles section for Hotspur23 and anyone else interested, to start developing an article that will serve the needs of Absinthe aficionados, while also meeting Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I feel the new article is necessary since the topic is largely ignored in the Absinthe article, and yet it is a large part of the Absinthe culture. If possible, I would also request that other Absinthe related articles not be deleted at least through the end of February so we can easily refer to them and merge them as necessary into the developing article or Wikibooks. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Bartending per Willscrlt. Seems like a perfect solution.--Kubigula (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrapist (2nd nomination)[edit]

I go to the University of Maryland, and if a friend of mine wasn't considering editing for this thing, I'm sure that I'd be in the vast majority of people who have no idea what the Terrapist is. Besides, in an earlier AfD, the campus' daily student paper (The Diamondback) was deemed to be non-notable. If it's not notable, when it also serves the surrounding College Park community and has a much higher circulation, there's no way The Terrapist is. --fuzzy510 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - previous AfD here. Tevildo 15:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. The previous keep votes seem to be dominated by this is worth keeping, it'll be big someday, and other papers have articles, and I remind everyone here that these aren't good arguments. I'd also be fine with a merge/redirect to one line in U or M article - Aagtbdfoua 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Maryland, College Park — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per Aagtbdfoua. Dekimasu 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy KEEP And please do not procedurally list incomplete afds where no one is actually making a case for deletion. -Doc^g 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay icon (2nd Nomination)[edit]

AfD nominated by Knowpedia. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Previous AfD here. Tevildo 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has been substantially revised since deletion nomination. Tevildo 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The entire article is referenced, and meets WP:NN. If you have a reason for nominating it, Tevildo, please state it; otherwise I see this as just a nonsense motion. And for the record, it was already revised before you slapped the deletion tag on it. See the diff here Jeffpw 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick note on what's happened here. Knowpedia put a CSD tag on the article at 0542 - this was removed. S/he then nominated it for AfD by adding it to the log page at 0815, but did not add the AfD tag to the article - I assumed that this was an oversight. All I did was to add the AfD tag to the article that s/he neglected to add - I have absolutely no opinion (as yet) on whether the article should be deleted, and completed the AfD on a procedural basis. The revisions to the article took place after it was added to the log. Tevildo 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep no reason given, no reason to bother with this debate. The article is fine. Koweja 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Distinctly notable concept and Jeff's revision has shown how encyclopedic and well verified it can be.Agne 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason or justification whatsoever. I see no reason for deletion. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No reason or justification given for nomination; no reason for deletion. Parammon 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating keep. Well done article and no reason to delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP An anon nomination without reasons? Please don't list it. If anyone wants this deleted, they can nominate it themselves. -Doc^g 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2Advanced[edit]

AfD nominated by 87.80.43.97 with reason: "My edit to add the AFD tag to 2Advanced wasn't vandalism - it's a wikivertisment." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Trial[edit]

Does not assert notability, severe problems with WP:V and WP:RS, no reliable sources cited to support notability. There is no reason given whatsoever why a music school adaptation and production of a commonly-performed Gilbert and Sullivan operetta should be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RNCM is notable, MUGSS may be notable, this production very evidently is not, given that I can't find any non-trivial independent sources about it. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University and community theatre groups are generally not notable (there are thousands and thousands of them). Adaptations of shows performed by amateur and university theatre groups are not notable, unless they become frequently performed by a number of groups or somehow become well-known. There are many adaptations of G&S shows that have been created by professional companies, let alone by the hundreds or thousands of community and university G&S theatre companies, and they should not each have a Wiki page. See WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might become notable in the future but it is not so yet. If it does become more commonly performed at some future date, I'd have no problem with it being recreated at that time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It simply can't be notable with a three-day run by a single amateur group. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable student production, no outside non-trivial reviews, no claim of notability beyond being performed once by a student group. They seem to have their own wiki, they can easily move this article there. Mak (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not verifiable. - Peregrine Fisher 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admirable, I'm sure, but not, on present evidence, of permanent note.Tim riley 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~KEEP~~, withdrawl of nomination. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm correcting the closure to No consensus. Withdrawal is only grounds for an automatic keep closure if no delete opinions are present, which is not the case here. (The same goes for non-admin closures.) This is of course only relevant for potential future nominations, since No consensus defaults to Keep. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Groups[edit]

~~"Basin Groups" is not a recognized geologic era of the Moon Lunokhod 10:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Note: See bottom for nominator's withdrawl -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am proposing Basin Groups for deletion because it is not a geologic era of the Moon that is recognized by experts who work in this field. The geological timescale that is currently in use is discussed at lunar geologic timescale, where there is no refernce to a "Basin Groups". The two external links for lunar geologic timescale do not have any reference to this era either. Wilhelms' book (which is considered a major repsected work by the lunar community) does not discuss this era (it is not in the index terms), nor does the popular article (written by a lunar scientist) of Linda Martel. On the Basin Groups article, there are two external links that have been used to support the case for such a group, but neither are reputable nor verifiable. One page says that information will be uploaded later, whereas the other is a wiki, and I have removed the offending material! As someone who works with the Moon on a daily basis, I could add a number of primary and secondary references supporting my assertions here, though I think that the Wilhelms and Martel articles should suffice. I would be happy to add additional refernces if asked. It is quite possible that Basin Groups was at one time used as an informal term (though I have never encountered it), and if this were the case, we could discuss this at lunar geologic timescale. Lunokhod 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and redirect if any evidence of currency is ever produced. 90-odd unique Googles, of whihc many are clearly unrelated. Cite papers if you want the redirect, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Look at GeoWhen database a reasonably respected electronic resource. It would appear that the Basin Groups Stage is not in conflict with the existing lunar geologic timescale as discussed in the Wikipedia. The Basin Groups appears as a refinement, namely a subdivision of Pre-Nectarian time, equivalent to Late Pre-Nectarian. As the Pre-Nectarian article indicates this was a time of basin formation on Luna. I note that the Wikipedia lunar geologic timescale article also does not reflect the Cryptic Stage, Cryptic era, that covers the earlier portion of Pre-Nectarian time. As far as authoritative, I understand that the International Commission on Stratigraphy has not officially recognized any of the subdivisions of Hadean time. Also take a look at Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Fig. 1.7 on page 10, available from Google books, which clearly shows both Basin Groups and Cryptic. --Bejnar 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWhen is not a reputable source. It is self-published. This is clear on the introduction of the web site, which says "Welcome to the GeoWhen Database, an attempt to sort out the mess that man has made of the geologic timescale. This project aims to reconcile the international stratigraphic standards with many of the regional and archaic naming schemes that appear in the literature." Lunokhod 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Harland book, I will look this up in my library asap, as the online version of the book is only partial, and says nothing about the rationale for using these eras. In any case, none of my geology or planetary geology textbooks use these eras, and I can not find reference to this in my file cabinet of scientific articles or pdfs either. As an active scientist in this domain, I can honestly say that these eras are not used by even a minority of the terrestrial and planetary communities. (Again, if you want a list of books and reveiw articles, tell me.) I also point out that it is scientifically unsound to "paste" geologic eras from the Moon (or any other celestial body) into the Earth's geologic history. Lunokhod 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that do not mention Basin Groups

Book chapters

Ryder et al. "Heavy bombardment of the Earth at ~3.85 Ga" in Origin of the Earth and Moon (2000).
Hartmann et al., The time dependend intense bombardment of the primordial Earth/Moon system, ibid.
Hiesinger and Head, New views of lunar geoscience: an introduction and overview, in New views of the Moon (2006).
Horz et al., Lunar surface processes, in The lunar sourcebook, 1991.
Stoffler and Ryder, Stratigraphy and isotope ages of lunar geologic units: Chronological standard for the inner solar system, in Geochronology of Mars and inner solar system, 2001.

Books

The planetary scientists companion, Lodders and Fegley, 1998.
Planetary science: A lunar perspective, S. R. Taylor, 1982.
Moons and planets, W. K. Hartmann, 1993.
The geology of multi-ring basins, P. Spudis, 1993.
The geologic history of the Moon, D. Wilhelms, 1987.

Organizations

Geological Society of America
United Stated Geological Survey
International Commission on Stratigraphy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunokhod (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that mention Basin Groups

Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Delete. One mention in one book is not enough.--JyriL ^talk 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harland et al. (1989) was basically the bible of geochronology for most geologists for more than a decade (until ICS 2004, and not withstanding the significant contributions of Gradstein, Ogg and Haq in the late 90s). If it is in that timescale, then it is worthy of mention. There is nothing wrong with saying that the terminology is uncommon or archaic in the article, and it certainly isn't part of the current ICS timescale, but those things by themselves do not justify simply pretending the terminology never existed. Keep the reference and explain the history for the reader. Also, "basin groups" hadean gives me 900 relevant google hits, not 90 as claimed above. 128.32.95.83 22:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against metioning this in either lunar geologic time scale or geologic time scale. This here is a debate only concering the deletion of the article Basin Groups, nothing else. Lunokhod 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that outcome would be better served by a merge than a delete, if it goes that way. Bryan 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-mainstream concept. WP:FRINGE appears to discourage this type of article. If this term exists due to an actual controversy in the field that could be carefully documented, it might be worth keeping on that basis. As it is, the article is quite vague about why this is an unofficial term. (A proposal that was considered but rejected, or a proposal too innovative for the regular geologists, or what?). It doesn't even explain what 'basin' has to do with anything. EdJohnston 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! GeoWhen is a reputable source. Whether GeoWhen is reputable or not is irrelevant for the "reputability" of Basin Groups. Whether Basin Groups is an official selenochron (or "reputable") is irrelevant. If it is a scientific term used sometimes, the article should be kept. If it's not a geochron, it should not be used in geochron templates, but the article can be kept. If it's not a selenochron it should not be used in selenochron templates, but the article can be kept. It's a very very odd conclusion, that since it's not an official part of this-or-that time sequence, it can be removed - it can most definitely not be removed, whether we like to use it or not. It would be a very bad thing if it be removed. The term is used, and therefore it should be kept. Regarding one of the "reputable" sources mentioned as not mentioning basin groups – Geologic History of the Moon, Don Wilhelms – it mentions basin groups at Plate 6A (page 11 in a PDF viewer), bottom of the page – not as selenochrons, but as deposit layers. It occurs – therefore it's a scientific necessity to keep the article. QED. Don't delete it – rewrite it!! Rursus 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to AfD nomination: Figure of Harland et al. is inconsistent with their discussion in text. I have just read the Harland et al. book and have discovered the following: In the text, they advocate using the lunar geologic time scale for the Hadean which includes the Imbrian, Nectarian, and Pre-Nectarian. Then they cite Wilhemls (1987) to subdivide the Pre-Nectarian into Cryptic, Basin Group 1, and Basin Groups 2-9. However, in their figure, they do not include the Pre-Nectarian epoch, but instead only include the subdivisions. Based on their text, I can only conclude that this is a typo in their manuscript. Anyone who has cited their typo (fortunately, there are very few!) have simply propogated a typographical error.

Concerning the subdividing the Pre-Nectarian into "Basin Groups", it appears that Wilhelms did indeed suggest this. However, this is only informal, and none of the USGS geologic maps of the Moon use this notation. Indeed, from Wilhelms (1987,p. 145) he states: "This volume divides 30 pre-Necarian basins into 9 age groups (table 8.2). Each group is headed by one basin whose relative age seems to be well established by crater densities or superpositional relations. Additional basins are tentatively placed in the groups on weaker grounds."

I continue to support the nomination for deletion on the grouds that "Basin Groups 1-9 and Cryptic" should be replaced by "Pre-Necarian" based on the Harland et al.'s own words. The fact that these subdivisions were used instead of Pre-Nectarian appears to be a typo. Lunokhod 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say is correct, I continue to believe that the terms and their history deserve a place to be discussed, and that keeping the article for that purpose makes sense. At the least the content should be merged, not deleted. 128.32.95.83 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking out the "huge" number of Google hits, most are due to wikipedia, and the rest are non authoritative entries. Google scholar comes up with nothing. The content could be relegated to a comment in Hadean article. (Really I dislike deleting stuff but this is misleading as to its reality. GB 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl of AfD nomination: After talking to a few terrestrial geologists offline, I am going to withdraw my nomination for deleting "Basin Groups" for the following reasons: First, it appears that the Harland et al. book is so respected, that even if they did make a typo in their summary plot, or even if they did not understand the lunar geologic time scale and made an serious error in representing it, it doesn't matter, and its too late. Second, I consider the inclusion of this period in the terrestrial geologic time scale to be a case of bad science, and wikipedia can play a role in correcting this by presenting the mainstream view among terrestrial and planetary scientists for why this period should be abandonned. Lunokhod 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I love You Lunokhod! This indicates Your intentions and Your attitude was motivated by a love of truth and science. That's a good example for the rest of us. Rursus 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --Core desat 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk[edit]

Article is about a group of Australian Navy Cadets. In Australia, cadet organisations are on about the same level as Scouting, and individual groups/squardrons/training ships have the same level of unproven notability as a random scout troop. None of the information presented is externally verified through the use of third party sources, and I don't think it would be externally verifiable

On a side note, I have no qualms about any useful, externally verifiable information being smerged to Australian Navy Cadets, as while I believe the whole organisation is notable and verifiable, individual units aren't. -- saberwyn

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- -- saberwyn 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Training" is spelt incorrectly in the title, by the way. --Canley 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe "traning" is like "aluminium," "encyclopaedia," "dreamt," or "pyjamas."Edison 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though a merge to Wellington Point State High School (I don't know if it exists under some other name, but it might), would not be too anathemal to me. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:ORG. It looks like it's going to be about a ship, but it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Was thinking keep if it actually was an RAN ship, but looks like training "ships" don't have to be actual ships. From what I've seen, nominator is correct, these seem to be just cadet groups. --Canley 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shore establishments of Naval organisations are often referred to as Stone frigates - there is no intention to deceive here, but the language "a training ship unit" is misleading. Springnuts 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - which is a shame, I really wanted them to be notable, but they aren't. Springnuts 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian Navy Cadets. Unverifiable and no attempt at showing notability as an individual organisation. Ga rr ie 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Training Ship is misleading, try HMAS Nirimba, which is now a TAFE college - it's about 30km inland in Quakers Hill.Ga rr ie 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Australian Shore Nirimba was the former Naval Aviation base, like HMAS Albatross (air station). -- saberwyn 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and repeat, very little indication of notability. Seraphimblade 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this was an actual naval ship, I would support keeping. Given that it is a cadets unit, deletion on the grounds of notability is appropriate. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Card Roulette[edit]

This looks like something made up in school one day, particularly with the line "The game of Credit Card Roulette is believed to have been created during the late 1980s by a group of students at Boston College." It also appears to violate WP:NEO, and hence also WP:OR. If all those fail to convince, then remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Crocodile Punter 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a blog is not a reliable source, let alone the notability standard of multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Seraphimblade 11:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. --Davidbober 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as both above. Springnuts 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. 2005 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the entry is both plausible and interesting Vranak
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep criterion. Seraphimblade 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright then, it's just plausible. Keep. Vranak

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lambeth[edit]

Self evidently a vanity page. Soobrickay 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost speedy, pure vanity, miserably failing WP:BIO. The Rambling Man 11:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable neutral sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say I say, what did the wikipedian say to the AFD process *Strong Delete - pure vanity. It's the way I tell 'em! --Larry laptop 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the term nowadays was Conflict of Interest. Jcuk 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable 15-year-old standup comic. NawlinWiki 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable The Adventures of Tintin pastiche, not published by a major publisher ("Attack" seems to be an anarchist press), not discussed in WP:V sources, gets only 26 distinct Google hits for the exact title[25], or a still rather weak 413 distinct (906 total) with a less strict search[26] It exists, but it fails the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) and (even excluding a proposal based deletion) fails WP:V beyond its existence. Fram 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you would reconsider your terminology. I can not see how being an anarchist press makes one not be a "major publisher". I personally know at least two anarchist presses which are very very very major publishers. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Attack" does not seem to be a major publisher, and attack is an anarchist publisher. Due to their search-unfriendly name, I have found only one other publication by them. I have found one link to their homepage, but that gave a 404 (bad link or inactive homepage, I don't know). If you could point me to more info about the publisher to show that it is indeed a major publisher, be my guest. Otherwise, your comment seems like nitpicking. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep With the greatest of respect this prod and and AFD are a clear demonstration of the way that WP:V is poisoning wikipedia, providing a figleaf for removal of content that is not removable by any other means. I have a genuinely hard time believing this publication would not have been covered in critical publications or have received reviews in same. What makes it vulnerable is purely the relative obscurity of the subject, not the verifiability of it. In short no matter how good the sophistry used to argue for the deletion of this article, I would like to read evaluations of it's worth by those who have read the actual comic book. If people who have read the comic book say it is not worth a wikipedia entry, I will gladly vote for deletion. I can not in good conscience do so without such assurances. The rule should be, if in doubt, keep. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry? Anyway, it is irrelevant if people who have read a comic want to keep or delete it. WP:ILIKEIT is an invalid keep reason. WP:V is hardly poisoning Wikipedia, it is a (perhaps the) core policy. If good WP:V sources can be found, I have no problem keeping it. In fact, I have argued for keeping obscure comics I haven't read in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meng_and_Ecker. I have looked for good sources for this one with the means available to me. I haven't found any. This does not mean that there aren't any, of course, but then providing those is up to those wanting to keep the article (they have had a year to do so since the creation of the article, and they have five more days to do so now). But the opinions of readers, fans, opposers, ... have no value in deciding whether this or any article is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to reception - critical or otherwise - in the media, searching for "Tintin" and "breaking free" gets 0 relevant hits in the Factiva news and magazine database while "Tintin in Thailand", a sex parody version of Tintin generally available only as a hard copy for sale on the tourist streets of Thailand gets 17 hits (including The Guardian, Reuters, Agence France-Presse (this book[27] indicates Tintin in Thailand mentioned in Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review). Only book source I could find that referenced the anarchist book is an advert in this book[28]. No hits for either title in google scholar. I'll withhold my !vote until there has been a bit more further discussion Bwithh 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cimon WP:V is an essential foundation stone of Wikipedia, not something which is "poisoning" it or a "figleaf" excuse or sophistry!! This may be the strangest argument for keep I've ever seen. And Tintin is not an obscure subject! Bwithh 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't make any effort to assert the notablity of the comic --RaiderAspect 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verified notability. I've taken a look at the comic online[29]. It's a real stretch of the truth to describe it as a parody of Tintin. The two main characters visually look like Tintin and his friend Captain Haddock (no doubt mostly traced directly from actual Tintin books - other scenes are directly traced from Tintin books but are otherwise in a totally different context). Otherwise, they have no resemblance - they talk differently, they act differently, they have different jobs and motivations and social context. The producers of this book could have chosen to "borrow" the imagery of Homer and Bart Simpson and the Simpsons and used exactly the same script of English anarchist characters with no significant effect from the change. At least in the Tintin in Thailand parody (which I've also read but won't link to due to legal issues) there is more than a visual resemblance for the characters. Bwithh 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a parody of a well-known comic does not make a publication notable. If notability is asserted I'll change my stance.--Jersey Devil 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides being truely dire (Bwithh's analysis of this work is spot-on) and an insult to Herge (which of course is not a valid reason to delete), it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --Larry laptop 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm sort of amazed it sells on amazon, but it's widely available, has ISBN-13, is in libraries. Is it notable because it's a copyright violation? It's unappealing work and the article gives no hint of anyone ever taking notice, but there could be truth to the stated press reaction at the time. It already gets a much too long description in the Tintin article, so maybe it would it be best if that text ends up in a Tintin pastiches and imitations article for this to merge into..? MURGH ^disc. 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V is what makes wikipedia a serious dictionary, acceptable in scholarly circles in ways that other, non-verified sources like urbandictionary are not. The requirement for verifibility, paired with that of notability, is our last line of protection from hoaxes, mass spam and eventual uselessness. It is not 'poisioning' wikipedia, in fact in my opinion the twin core policies of WP:N and WP:V are the very heart of the project, most of the rest is just quality assurance and process.

Comment Murgh, I dont really understand your reasoning. While there could be truth in the stated press reaction, there is no verifiable evidence of such. The merely possiblity of notability is not sufficient. --RaiderAspect 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that the notion of "no verifiable evidence of such" is harsh. The claimed coverage from Channel4, The Face, Daily Star whatever in 1989 isn't as accessible as 10 years later. It may still be very verifiable, but falls outside "easy online verification". And the more I check around (though no microfilms at the public library) there seems to me to exist wikipedia precedence of a more generous threshold of notability. -MURGH ^disc. 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must be missing something, but I don't even see any claimed coverage in the article (or in the section about it in The Adventures of Tintin). Any pointers as to where you got that info is more than welcome... Fram 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, it came via the mandatory google. [30] [31] mentions this press. MURGH ^disc. 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      and if that Thatcher quote[32] is right I'd say it is fairly notable.. MURGH ^disc. 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - These are from the back cover of the comic. If they don't have qualms about copyright infringements by using Tintin for their political goals, I don't think they will have qualms about fabricating quotes to make it seem more anarchistic and anti-government (it's not unusual to make up blurb quotes anyway, for humoristic purposes, even Gerrit De Jager has done it). These are very very far from WP:V sources, and especially the Thatcher one makes me doubt the veracity of all of them. 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well if the press quotes are just hoax, I care even less if someone doesn't appear and passionately champion this book. So yes, if it's all lies and RL unverifiable, I'll change my consensus flag.. MURGH ^disc. 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, it's just my gut feeling that they are fake, not a certainty. You are correct that if e.g. the Thatcher quote is real, then it is a strong point in favor of the book of course. We'll see if someone comes along with good sources! Fram 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I then reconfirm weak keep (in some form) after this last round. In spite of itself this seminotable, crappy comic has managed to survive obscurity since 1988 which must account for something that wikipedia can't be "above" including. -MURGH ^disc. 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe I've found the source of the Margaret Thatcher "quote" [33] (search for "utterly revolted") however it turns out that she was refering to another comic called "The Scum". --RaiderAspect 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many delete votes above are absolutely correct that WP:V and WP:N are "the very heart of the project," and that we should not keep an article with no third-party references that attest to impact or historical significance. I have, however, just added quotes and references from The Times, The Guardian, and The Independent. Hopefully that takes care of the basic sourcing and notability issues as far as all are concerned. -- Dragonfiend 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the good work, Dragonfiend. These are clearly WP:V sources, which show at least that at the time, the book has gotten some attention (which is enough for Wikipedia). Too bad, I'll have to change my opinion to a reluctant ~~Keep~~ now (reluctant because I utterly dislike these rip-offs which seem only to use the name of more famous books or characters to get the attention: but "I don't like it" is not a valid delete reason, luckily). I'll not withdraw my nomination though, since I want to give the other !voters an the closing admin the chance to give their own opinion (again). I don't think it will be deleted after your work, but it can do no harm to let the AfD run its course. I'll probably reduce the section about it in the main Tintin article though (a bit undue weight now), but I'll wait a few days for that as well. Fram 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - After seeing the full text as given by Hiding, I still apreciate the work done by Dragonfiend, but I think that the very short merntions these sources are, makes me go for a weak delete again. It's a close call, but I think this one fazlls slightly below the threshold for notability I am looking for. Fram 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reconfirm Delete Sorry, thanks for the effort but sarcastic mentions in diary columns and paperback roundups aren't sufficient as non-trivial sources. If these mentions are more than a few lines long, recommend Dragonfiend copies the entire text of these mentions to the afd discussion. Bwithh 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to pass WP:V, as I don't find the sources to be trivial; appears to be an encyclopedic topic, and it's treated respectably in the article as it stands. I'm not utterly convinced that it is notable, but I am sufficiently convinced that I don't want to see the article vanish. Dekimasu 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Martin Rowson sourcing is the killer for me. Rowson is a very strong source within the field and his opinion is rather more important than Bwithh may be aware. Given the mention in the main article and given the opinion of Rowson, who saw fit to recommend it to readers, I think the article is warranted and well written. Hiding Talk 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Here's the fullness of Rowson's words:

Equally nostalgic, but hankering after an entirely different epoch, is J Daniel's The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free (Attack International pounds 3.95). Dedicated to "all those fighting capitalism" this "graphic novel of Tintin and Friends in a Revolutionary Situation" generously allows any part of the book to be "freely reproduced by any revolutionary group" (including, I suppose, the urban guerrillas administering the Herge Estate). This cavalier attitude to copyright is just another acute observation in what I take to be a brilliant post-modern parody of a situationist canard produced during a sit-in at Hornsey School of Art circa 1972. I hope. Otherwise the crusty cadres of Class War (of which this is a by-product) might as well pack up and go home. Placing obscene epiphets and revolutionary nostrums into the mouths of the icons of child-ren's fiction was beginning to look stale even before the Oz Trial, and nowadays VIZ (VIZ: The Pan Handle: The Most Outstanding Parts of Issues 53 to 57, John Brown Publishing pounds 6.99) does this kind of thing much better, and probably to more subversive effect. The only cliche that Breaking Free doesn't salvage is the hoary old line "Steal This Book!!!" on the back cover. But if the idea of this sad little publication appeals to you, don't hesitate to do just that.

- I'd say the article is misrepresenting the source and I withdraw my opinion, revising it to delete. Hiding Talk 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian coverage in full too:

REVOLUTIONARY comic book, first published in 1988, in which Tintin and Haddock are reincarnated as militant activists who organise a strike, and a mass demonstration, after a friend is killed on a building site. The interesting things about it are the way each frame is adapted from Herge's originals, and the touching belief in the possibility of an upsurge in grassroots socialist radicalism. One suspects that Tony Blair is not the saviour Daniels had in mind

The last sentence kind of deflates the selected prose somewhat, you ask me. Hiding Talk 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly don't mean to represent the sources. Yes, they are from brief book reviews. I see that others have posted two of the three here. The third, from The Times reads, "Thunderin' Typhoons! Tintin, the raisin-eyed, be-quiffed journalist hero of a thousand adventures against bolsheviks, terrorists and Johnny Arab, has changed sides drastically. He goes beserk at the social security office, gets nicked for shoplifting, works on a building site with Cap'n Haddock (who now lives in a tower block), hangs around with militants, becomes a class warrior and strike co-ordinator, and finally helps usher in a socialist revolution. This startling volte-face appears, presumably without the imprimatur of the Herge estate, in Breaking Free, a naive and brutish strip-cartoon book for junior Dave Sparts, published by something called Attack International, whose affiliated organisations are the Anarchist-Communist Federation, Black Flag and World Revolution. I presume Harry Thompson, will be reflecting this unusual side of his subject in Tintin: A Biography, which comes out from Hodder in July." -- Dragonfiend 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From memory, Harry Thompson didn't. I read the book recently in order to work on the Tintin articles. I won't swear it wasn't in there, but I'm 99% positive if it was I would've used it as a source for the mention at The Adventures of Tintin. Hiding Talk 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to be honest, the press coverage we have here is in relation to the work's status as a Tintin parody rather than as a work in its own right. I think then that the mention in the The Adventures of Tintin article is enough, but other people may beg to differ. Hiding Talk 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'm pretty sure the Harry Thompson reference was a joke, not a serious prediction, let alone one that came true. -- Dragonfiend 17:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am a bit bemused as to why the negativity of the reviews would make the sources less important. It still passes WP:V, and WP:N does not require positive press. Dekimasu 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its been sourced. Refer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Addhoc 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rakuljic[edit]

A seemingly non-notable film maker. Not an obvious speedy candidate as an effort has been made to assert notabilty, but the subject seems to have only made a few short films. Google does not find any thing significant Teiresias84 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Teiresias84 11:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a student filmmaker of some short films, but I don't see any evidence of significant distribution or reviewing of those films. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonotable young filmmaker. Does not pass any of the biographical requirements and is also... vanity / autobiography looking at the article creators name. Peripitus (Talk) 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aspiring filmmaker and student. A Google News Archive comes up with no sources [34] nor does Google News. [35]. The article does not cite verifiable sources and I cannot find them. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - author request at User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up your browser for Indic scripts[edit]

In the wrong namespace but the author cannot be persuaded - see User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that it is in the wrong namespace. Don't say things I have not said!

But a minimal reference is still needed anyway, because it is referenced directly from the Telugu wikipedia (see te:), at the top of all its pages, in a non-editable area (it's not part of any of the Telugu wiki pages!)

So, until the Telugu wikipedia is corrected, we need it, and we should include further assistance links in this minimal page for Telugu users. verdy_p 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't like the fact that you use immediate delete immediately after a move; especially when this clearly breaks the intent fdr which it was intended (with the immediate delete, the Telugu Wikipedia stills to points nowhere!). I did not want to create a full help page to solve this issue.

So keep it, and ask to Telugu Wikipedia admins to correct their site (at least change the link it currently displays and which is hardcoded somewhere to point directly to en:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts on the English Wikipedia. i don't know exactly where it is hardcoded, may be it is within the MediaWiki software installed in this wiki! (if so we need a bug report to solve it, and the same bug may affect other wikis) verdy_p 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i don't like that you lie when you say that I did not reference the backward link. You have simply not read anything! Instead, you have just read the title and immediately deleted the article, without wondering why it was there. This is not the Wikiepdia policy to perform such immediate deletion, where there is no evidence that the article was created with the intent to introduce garbage or spam. This is not spam, and even if you delete it, anyone on the Telugu wikiepdia could recreate it immediately by just following the link it provides everywhere! verdy_p 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, and salt. JuJube 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - I'm still not sure what this was supposed to achieve anyway. The Rambling Man 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Good Job Eludium-q36. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Niskanen[edit]

This is (I think) some sort of CV, and is arguably so lacking coherency as to meet the "nonsense" CSD criterion. Previous prod was disputed, sent to AfD as another editor then placed another prod. No indication of notability (and quite realistically I also have not the first clue what this text blob even means.) Seraphimblade 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Withdrawing nomination per rewrite. Seraphimblade 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A career resumé does not make an article. Autobiography anyway. -- RHaworth 11:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised to keep. Watching a man lip-synch to an old wax-cylinder recording [in one of the refs] is not exactly a glowing review but notability has now been asserted by a third party. -- RHaworth 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I couldn't do it, Eludium-q36 could. CiaranG 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete I normally like to try and salvage something like this into a stub - however, it doesn't appear to be possible in this case. No indication of notability, and defies my attempts to find any. Autobiography is foolish, rather than a criteria for deletion, IMHO. CiaranG 12:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~, salvage what? Alf photoman 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not yet up to par but the author is working on it Alf photoman 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ keep, but certainly not a speedy delete. Actually looking at the resume, it lists a little over 60 performances and 4 recordings. I do not know whether this makes him notable as an opera singer --Would it make him notable if he sang a more contemporary genre? It could undoubtedly be sourced from reviews and wikified. The comment 'nonsense" does not apply if one actually looks at it and tries to understand & is perhaps a little out of order. DGG 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC),[reply]
Delete. The article seems completely unsalvagable, and it doesn't help that I can't find sources in English. Pretty clear conflict of interest, judging from the author, User:Niskamies. --Wafulz 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following re-write from the ground up. I've put together a 15-minute stub, which (I believe) clearly asserts notability. I shall invite those advocating deletion to review the revised article. It may be necessary to disambiguate in the future, as search engines return a published academic in economics, and I assume that these are different persons. Eludium-q36 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe article is now shorter, is to the point, and has appropriate sources. Will those having voted delete please look again. I change my own vote from weak keep to keep. DGG 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, call me stunned, but looks like there's actually something here. Good job Eludium! Seraphimblade 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse Youth Arts Centre[edit]

Non-notable youth / arts group. -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Might want to take a look at Corio Village Shopping Centre too. --Davidbober 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ga rr ie 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only source cited was a Myspace page which doesn't cut it as a source. Google News Archive comes up with 25 results which indicates some notability. [36]Capitalistroadster 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are ads for auditions and free amateur productions truely notable coverage?Ga rr ie 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of significant secondary coverage. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs[edit]

More wrestlecruft. A list of what countries TNA is on TV is hardly encyclopedic. One Night In Hackney 11:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absurdly excessive detail. The encyclopaedic content of this article boils down to "TNA has been shown in numerous countries". The list itself is probably longer than the list of people who care or will ever look it up. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless list of countries. Jayden54 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with that this should be delete. Note: We should probably add the main TV channels TNA is on in the main article. Govvy 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This sort of information should be in the opening paragraph of the TV show's article. See WWE RAW. Normy132 07:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some info into TNA article Agreed, there isn't a need to list what stations play specific television programs. Every network television series in existence plays in multiple countries on a wide variety of channels. So delete this article, and if there is something actually notable in it merge that information into TNA's main article. Dugwiki 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted the major TV stations airing TNA around the world. Govvy 12:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks pretty irrelevant. --Dave. 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing I almost forgot. This seems to be copied from http://www.tnawrestling.com/tv/coverage.html --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is nothing more than a coverage list. If it had general information on shows like Impact, Xplosion, etc. (for which there already exists an individual page for each), it would have encyclopedic value, but I see none in this list. Clint 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign Principality of Jaridia[edit]

This article, which has managed to survive for over a week now, is a whole cloth fabrication complete with imagined statistics. Nominating because even hoaxes like this are arguably not speedyable, and this is the sort of thing that tends to get de-prodded. Serpent's Choice 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a thousand times. Somebody else using wikipedia to attack France. Ho-hum! Keresaspa 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but it's the funniest thing I've seen all day. Move to WP:BJ or even Uncyclopedia. Walton monarchist89 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wow, can't believe this survived a week.--Jersey Devil 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone, somewhere has far too much time on their hands. --The Way 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's bad enough that this can't (I think) be speedied. Do not move to WP:BJ unless you think everyone else likes wasting their time nominating and deleting this garbage. This is what blogs are for. - Aagtbdfoua 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Move to Uncyclopedia. —dima/s-ko/ 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though it is a clever parody. And don't forget to track down linked hoax articles or hoaxes from the same source. Edison 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure the rest have been speedied A1, as this was the only article with any substance. However, the images should be deleted when the article goes ... there are quite a lot of them. Serpent's Choice 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, patent nonsense, BJAODN etc. Dragomiloff 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please do not BJAODN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Band[edit]

Side project of a member of Ann Beretta, a barely notable band, only one album which is not self-released. Creator has no contributions outside of the work of this individual. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Their discography is almost completely self released, which means they don't pass the music guidelines. Jayden54 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND (only one album on a notable indie label). ShadowHalo 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:BAND... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ShadowHalo. Killroy4 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And The Band Played On-Live At Home[edit]

I am unable to find a single reliable source for information about this album. There are fewer than a dozen unique Googles outside of Wikipedia. There is no evidence it has ever charted. The band is barely notable. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be non-notable per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Jayden54 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the album does exist but neither it or the band are notable. One Night In Hackney 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Removal of unsourced material is an editorial decision and can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex[edit]

Poorly sourced list with potentially libelous content and original research. Unencyclopedic. I removed some of the worst content here, but the entire article needs to go. Oden 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more sources. Just because something is not listed on Wikipedia does not mean it is not truly notable. The article could use some polishing but is overall fine and should not be deleted. 71.225.125.176 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some is unsourced, however there is no reason to remove this from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghettodude (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It would need to go if nothing on the subject can be sourced at all. But it can. The fact that Shortbus, 9 Songs, Baise-Moi, and Intimacy all contain unsimulated sex (the latter with named actors), can be sourced to places such as this article in The Guardian and this article in The Times, for example. Your problem with this article is verifiability. Feel free to wield the merciless sword of verifiability on the article, removing all unsourced content, and refusing to let it return without a proper source being cited. But deletion is not the answer to this article's problems. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmmmmm.... Regardless of Uncle G's suggestion (and I would ADD to it that the redlinked movies be removed as well; if a movie is not notable enough for Wikipedia as a whole, then it is not notable enough in part either), the question remains whether such a list is encyclopedic. I sometimes get the impression that editors that love pop culture have run out of articles to write and have now moved on to creating IMHO arbitrary lists to categorise information in a myriad of ways. So, while the subject of "unsimulated sex in film" is possibly notable, a list of all verifiable and notable movies that have such scenes goes to a level of detail beyond which an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. There are some things that just don't belong in an encyclopedia, which is why we direct readers to the sources and external links for further reading. Zun aid ©® 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a film is redlinked doesn't mean it isn't notable enought for an article. It just means no one has gotten around to writing an article about it yet. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Zunaid; even if everything was cited and redlinks were removed, etc., etc., this would still be unencyclopedic listcruft. As Zunaid said, it is probable that the concept of (unsimulated) sex in film is notable, but a mere mention of films that contain sex is not. -- Kicking222 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete as this article will clearly continue to be victimized by Wikipedia's elitist bias against such topics. And I'm voting as a frequent contributor to said article. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gan fon 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. Since there have been only a small handful of non-porn films in this category, I don't think it's even close to listcruft. It seems to me more like documentation of a shift in cultural and industry norms. Maybe in twenty years it will have grown to a nonmanagable size, but we can worry about that then. Certainly needs to be sourced and dramatically cropped, however -- I would argue that it should stick to its title ("mainstream" and "films") and lose all the cable tv / internet stuff. bikeable (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Otto4711 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out by Uncle G., much of the information in this article can and does meet WP:V. This is definitely an article that needs to be monitored for possible instances of libel, but it is nonetheless encyclopedic: it presents verifiable and noteworthy information that in many cases has directly affected the cultural or social impact of the flims in question. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above of course. Jcuk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the other delete comments above, the 'mainstream' seems like an arbitary criterion to me. I followed the mainstream cinema link at the top of the list to shed further light, where my thoughts were confirmed by the text "the boundary is vague". CiaranG 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....but 1) immediately remove everything that isn't sourced as potentially libellous. 2) Since that will not leave much, why oh why is this a LIST. Rename to Mainstream films with unsimulated sex and allow a list of whatever is verifiable. --Doc^g 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Uncle G and as article with multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few verifiable examples of "mainstream" films with unsimulated sex acts, sure. Once you purge this article of the speculation, original research and unverifiable claims there is content left, yes, but not enough to warrant a "list article". NeoFreak 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be dense (it comes natural!), but I don't see how this is a reason for deletion. In fact, just the opposite: because unsimulated sex in a mainstream movies is a rare thing, it is worth having a list of those rarities. Surely a List of mainstream movies with simulated sex would be listcruft, but this is a list of exceptions to a rule that has very few exceptions. In this way, it's like having a list of left-handed baseball players -- that is, they are all important exceptions. Just my tuppence. bikeable (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very fair point. I think an article about this topic could be made if done right and the sources where there for the reason you stated. This article is not about the subject, it's just a listing of movies in which it occurs, not encyclopedic to begin with and then it's losses the rest of it's reason for existence (in my mind) when only one or two of those movies scenes can be verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All criticisms seem to originate from personal biases. The article just needs a brief paragraph explaining how/why unsimulated sex and/or explicit sex found its way into mainstream cinema.
Delete these not mainstream movies. the whole article is POV. --MarsRover 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see where the "keepers" are coming from in the responses above, and would not object to this list being partly merged back into an "unsimulated sex in film" article as examples of the concept. However I still feel that having a long list of every single film that fits the criteria goes beyond an encyclopedic level of detail. Zun aid ©® 06:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. The list is entertaining, I'll grant you, but not a topic for an encyclopedia article. Maybe there should be a separate "Listopedia" or something to capture this list-making impulse. But really, if you grant this for Wikipedia, what's next? "List of films in which simulated fellatio occurs"? "List of non-mainstream films with scenes of dogs drinking water"? (Not to mention the problem of adjudicating what counts as "mainstream.") BTfromLA 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ...and clean up. Not particularly a good article, but that is an of itself isn't enough to delete. From my reading of the article, it's hardly libelous since qualifiers are given whenever there is a controversy. Zotdragon 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep and remove or tag unreferenced items There is some possible use here for someone researching either censorship or sex in movies and related topics by providing specific films the reader can reference as citable examples. So I'd go with keeping the article, but removing or tagging for citation unreferenced information. Dugwiki 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Addhoc 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete all unsourced material per Uncle G. VegaDark 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more references. (Ibaranoff24 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete These are hardly "mainstream" films. Most are underground or foreign films.Fistful of Questions 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up - remove the actual 'porn' films, and keep those that are truly mainstream, which could be loosely defined as those that have been allowed to play in the cinema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.76.156.103 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If this were a proper article I might feel otherwise, but we have more than enough of these silly pop culture lists already. We certainly don't need a big list of supposedly mainstream films that supposedly show people really doin' it. If the vote does go to "Keep", I suggest a LOT of paring down using more citations and a much stricter definition of "mainstream film". CKarnstein 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any compelling reason to remove the article. Clean up any libelous content, sure, though I saw nothing that was libelous -- i.e., that demonstrated a malicious intent. Seems like a fairly honest and straightforward list. Could someone point out content that they though was libelous? Otherwise, the only basis for objection is the sexual content, and really, if you're going to let the prudes run the show, might as well give up and do a dead trees edition with all objectionable content removed, because it won't be the Wikipedia and it will not be a democratically-created product.

Pat Powers 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day[edit]

Article has been proded several times and de-proded by anons. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. If it is real it is not adequately sourced, and is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dual Freq 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom --Dual Freq 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NFT pretty much covers it. This is a single non-notable day for binge drinking at a single college campus. In addition, the school's newspaper does not count as a "reliable source", and otherwise, there is no referencing. -- Kicking222 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the university newspaper unreliable here? The journalist appears to have done a fair amount of legwork, checked xyr facts, and got the article past an editor to have it published. Those are the very things that reliability deals in. Uncle G 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Daily Illini seems to have had some problems with its editorial review process in the past, at least according to its wikipedia article. Just the same, this unofficial university student holiday or whatever its called is not exactly notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Davidbober 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, classic violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fous ta cagoule[edit]

Contested PROD. A non-notable local meme. Joyous! | Talk 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day explains, unless journalists or historians were there recording the event and have already published their research in some reputable publication, what happened at "approximately 3:00 P.M. on Sunday, January 14'th in Mr. S.'s room" is unverifiable. Everything must be properly documented outside of Wikipedia before it is included in Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely made up in school and doesn't seem notable at all. The article is kinda lame as well, i.e. "The video was played by Mr. Schnitzler for Mr. Culley at approximately 3:00 P.M. on Sunday, January 14'th in Mr. S.'s room.". I mean, what the heck? What's the point of this article? Jayden54 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:N -Painezor 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. Khoi khoi 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect (probably to List of fictitious Jews). If consensus later removes it from there as well, then probably delete as the consensus does not seem to favor an independent article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of the AFD contributions, consensus is split fairly evenly between merge and delete, with a few keeps. There is a significant majority for delete the article (ie, either of delete or merge), on the basis of listcruft or WP:NOT an indiscriminate list. Both delete and merge imply removal of this independent article. This implies a consensus is achieved that there isn't justification for an independent article. However, there is also a significant number (around 50%) of keep the information (ie, keep or merge), implying a significant view that the information is considered useful and appropriate, and a view that it should be preserved somehow either by keeping or merging. (Note - Argument by analogy is not appropriate for AFD, each article is judged on its own merits as per Ssbohio.)

Taking these two together, it seems there is a communal consensus overall: - that the list is considered overall sufficiently encyclopedic or notable to keep the information, but not sufficiently important for its own independent article. It thefore looks like consensus is that the list should probably be merged into some other more relevant article, and this one deleted or redirected. Looking at the proposed target articles suggested, I'm inclined to agree that List of fictional Jews is a more useful location to try, than List of LGBT Jews, on the basis that fiction/nonfiction seems a more fundamental distinction than straight/gay. Or, as per one comment somewhere, it 'muddies the water' if fictional Jews are added to an article mainly listing real Jews.

List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters[edit]

Although I am the article "creator" (albeit after splitting it off) and also the nominator, please do not use this as a reason to consider speedy deletion. I feel the article should have a full chance to have a consensus formed. The list is a valid list, but I feel it does not pass any of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I split it from the original article, a genuinely notable list, because it diluted that article with ephemera, and did so after flagging a possible split on that talk page (no responses after 8 days). Although I am nominating the list my nomination is Neutral and a request for a consensus to be formed Fiddle Faddle 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all lists of x who are y and z. Else we have 'fictional Buddhist and short' 'fictional socialist and red-haired' 'non-fiction atheists who had tea with Jonny Cash' etc. --Doc^g 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slippery slope is a logical fallacy insofar as each article stands or fall on its own merits, and what other article(s) may or may not be created doesn't bear on whether this article should be deleted or not. Further, this contribution identifies no basis in policy that supports deletion of this material. --Ssbohio 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well maybe. However I'm uncertain what this provides that existing lists don't. Is there something unique about fictional Jewish LGBT people that can't be dealt with on existing lists of fictional Jews or LGBT?--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question arises: is this a set of Jews for the list of fictional LGBT characters, or an LGBT list within the list of fictional Jews? Even if the article lacks sufficient legs as an independent work, it is still a collection of content that would otherwise be duplicated in other lists. --Ssbohio 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to List of fictitious Jews. This looks to be overly specific as that list isn't so crowded it needs separating by sexual orientation. If someone wants LGBT as a subsection of the Jewish lists that might be fine.--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in view of the List of fictitious Jews, should the consensus be "delete" that might be better phrased as Merge, presumably? Assuming they are not in the list, of course. Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, hold on.--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Unless there's a direct way to select articles at the intersection of the three sets involved (fictional characters, Jewish people, & LGBT people), no better method of organizing these articles exists. As no deletion vote has cited a basis in policy, and I am unaware of any method for selecting the intersection of multiple categories, I must endorse keeping it. --Ssbohio 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question You make a valid point about the intersection. Is the list itself of sufficient "everything" that it warrants a place here? The List of Fictional Characters coudl easily be modified or footnotes used to signify non statistical majority sexuality of one so chose. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the contributions to the discussion, it seems that merging the content would be an acceptable alternative, as long as the content gets incorporated into all relevant lists (fictional characters, LGBT Jews, fictional LGBT characters, fictional Jews, etc). However, I still see the maintenance of a separate page that can be included by links within all the aforementioned groups as a more common-sense solution, especially considering that Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. --Ssbohio 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect back to List of LGBT Jews. "LGBT" and "Jewish" is a little bit more important of an intersection, even for fictional characters, than "Buddhist" and "short." Otto4711 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it does not belong in a list of real people. It devalues that list by virtue of the characters being fictional. If the List of LGBT Jews is an important list then it should not be devalued with fictional folk. If it has a place, surely it is in a list of fictional people, annotated that the character is set out to be Jewish? Fiddle Faddle 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. This type of query is better put to a relational database than an encyclopedia. -- Alan McBeth 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not a fan of lists, anyway, and this list serves little purpose that I can see. If the content needs to be kept, merge into list of fictional Jews, and add the the character is LGB or T to the description on that list. Jeffpw 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless listcruft.--OinkOink 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all content to one or the other list of fictional characters. We might want to keep this as a redirect. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Brzica[edit]

I could not find any neutral references for this text, not for this person. Seems to be some made up propaganda material from Serbo-Croatian wars, and can be mostly found on serbian sites and forums. Most google hits simply redirect to wikipedia or sites that copied the wikipedia article. Rhun 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google has led me to several mentions of this person: [37], [38], a mention of a documentary in which he was mentioned (I know, I know...) and a book in which he's mentioned (The Search for Nazi's in America by Howard Blum. Published by Quadrangle, 1977). It seems fairly certain that he existed and that he was involved in the genocide of Serbs during WWII. However, the whole business of 1,360 throats slit does seem very dubious, but as it's not mentioned in the article, I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. Sources are thin on the ground, but Internet sources for this sort of thing usually are.--Hadžija 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When asked for references to back up an article, especially one dealing with a conflict between two nations who had a war 10 years ago inspired with nationalistic hatred, its not very "neutral" (to satisfy the NPOV requirement) to cite sources from one side which participated in this war (and the surrounding infoamations campaign, and so on). The first, jasenovac-info.com is, i cite, "the holy assembly of bishops of the serbian orthodox church", which I wouldnt call a neutral source. The second one neither, with other articles like "Hague Tribunal: Created to Demonize the Serbs", "Media misinformation about Yugoslavia", "Was the Supposed Srebrenica Massacre a Hoax?" and so on. -- Rhun 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site itself isn't the source, the book it quotes is. And what do you have against the Serbian Orthodox Church? Its leader, Patriarch Paul, kept calling for peace and peaceful solutions to political problems all the way through all the wars.--Hadžija 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just cite "some book", without having other books and sources proving the information in this book is correct. I can write and publish a book, but this doesnt make this book worth citing before other sources aknowledge that the information in this book is accurate. And apparently no one, ever, although the place of the genocide is outside Serbia, and freely accessible like the rest of this concentration camp Jasenovac, aknowledged that this person called by this name actually existed. If this were the case, there would be citations of this famous mass butcherer everywhere on the net, and not _only_ on some serbian sites, and on sites which copied the contents of this Wikipedia article. -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming there is some verifiability to the guy, he seems notable enough.--Wehwalt 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for verifability, so a serbian source of an alleged mass-serb-murderer no one else cared to prove wont cut it, since today, 10 years after the war, still a load of propaganda material is roaming the net. Therefore neutral references should be posted. -- Rhun 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is enough evidence to keep the article. As unsavory as some Serbs have been, that doesn't mean other Serbs can't be victims.--Wehwalt 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs being victims by the Ustasa regime in the WW2 era Croatia isnt disputed here at all. But trying to google it, I have not been able to find any other references that prove the existance of this figure than Serbian sites only and sites that copied the text from the Wikipedia article here. I certainly do not think that for an Wikipedia article about a mass murderer and war criminal it is enough to find a citation on some Serbian site and nowhere else? -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite disgusting that you have to justify yourself to someone in this manner (not an attack on you, on the way things are). Imagine if I said that, "as unsavory as some Jews have been, that doesn't mean other Jews can't be victims." --Hadžija 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me. See Hadžija's comments. Gan fon 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really dont care that for something to be included in the wikipedia and then spread to international users as a _proven_ fact to other sites there do not exist any neutral references at all? Even if you know that under the circumstances of the Serbo-Croatian nationalism of the previous 60 years and especially after the recent war there were _insane_ amounts of propaganda material floating around on both sides? Would you still take an unprovable information about a mass murderer who killed 1500 (!) people in a day in a butchering contest(!), whose name only by chance was "Petar Brzica" (Speedy Peter), if this information is provided from only one of the sides in the conflict, and not proven by any international source at all? Well, I would have a problem doing that and then proxying this information through the Wikipedia to other sites on the net as a proven "fact" when it isnt one. -- Rhun 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the thing about the throat slitting seems to be dubious, but it's not in the article. Accordingly, I voted to delete the Srbosjek here. This guy does seem to have existed, so why delete this article? Finally, please stop lying (no other way to characterise it) that there are no sources when I've linked to them.--Hadžija 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god, you linked a discussion forum as a _proof_ a mass murdering war criminal existed 60 years ago!? Dont you think that by all the effort that has been put into examination of WW2 mass murderings and the holocaust there should be some references besides.... a silly discussion forum, or some dubious blog? I am _NOT_ saying you provided no sources, but I think the ones you provided aer worthless when trying to proove a war crime and an mass murder. This ISNT enough. Are you really serious you cant get anything better than an discussion forum and a "Emperors new clothes" mentioning as a proof of a WW2 warcrime?? -- Rhun 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still ignoring the quote from a book I linked to, then? It seems 99% certain the guy existed. You seem a bit eager to delete this article may I say.--Hadžija 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sorry, i certainly have overseen the two pages linked in the article _after_ my Afd-request from the book "Wanted" by Howard Bloom, which, given Blum's reputation, I would reckognize as an neutral source on this matter. So thanks to User:Laughing Man for providing the links and (unknowingly) clarifying, so I can recall my request for deletion. Greetings, -- Rhun 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final comment, I am somewhat troubled that editors should say that because a source is of a certain nationality, it is per se unreliable. Propaganda is a weapon used by both sides in war. That a source is Serbian does not make it a lie; that a source is Croatian doesn't make it truthful. It's been said that winners write history; perhaps so, but I would hope WP takes a broader perspective. The fact that the Allies won World War I didn't mean that the anti-German propaganda they put out (raped nuns and so forth) became truthful. We should take a neutral tone, laying out evidence and opposing evidence.--Wehwalt 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without third party confirmation you do not have a proof that it _is_ relaiable. I know first hand what amount of propaganda and especially false, totally made up stories have been brought up between the Serbs and the Croats in their mutual desinformation and demonisation campaigns (which is, on a large level still going on, 10 years after their wars), and at the same time, how many war crimes have been tried to get hushed up. I'm hereby removing the Afd text block. -- Rhun 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as users above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Robertson[edit]

Non-notable, possibly autobiographical article. Mayor of a town with a population under 20,000. --м info 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no reason given for deletion. TRKtv t c e 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original reason for deletion was apparently deleted by accident. It has been restored above. --Metropolitan90 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Brown. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable in his part of LA.Baka man 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dhartung — Bellhalla 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable enough, Camptown 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this person meet notability if he were a member of the state legislature, rather than a small-town mayor? Where is the 20,000 population criteria determined? Would a mayor of Plains, Georgia, for example, be eligible because that town obtained attention through Jimmy Carter. What about a mayor of Crawford, Texas? I read somewhere on the board that notability is notability in the local area, not statewide.

Billy Hathorn 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through a half dozen or so Articles for deletion. (I had never looked through the list before.) I found all of those articles vastly inferior to the articles on these two mayors Bill Robertson and Paul A. Brown. The Robertson and Brown articles meet the standards for any local politicians and are well-written. The other articles that I checked for the most part made no sense at all and were poorly written and organized.

Billy Hathorn 16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - probably salvageable, needs a few more references. Addhoc 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the Dozen 3[edit]

Movie does not exist. It is not in preproduction, there is no script and no actors have been signed to work on this movie. The only speculation that exists stems from fans of the first 2 movies. Mothh 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero Party[edit]

The article F-Zero Party has been an orphan since its creation two edits ago, and doesn't seem to make sense to me. My guess is that it is a list of possible characters in the game F-Zero GX, but if so should be merged into that article or at least wikified. V-Man737 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands its an unreferenced/unsourced list of names with no explanations of anything. SkierRMH,16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Contentless and contextless. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list of names with no apparent purpose. Da Big Bozz 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: confusing, pointless, and fails WP:GOOGLE miserably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metrackle (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per WP:WTF? -Ryanbomber 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm sure you could've speedy'd it. Axem Titanium 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ryanbomber. Wtf indeed; I can't make sense of this article or why it's around. --Scottie theNerd 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the few times I say delete, this truly is a random collection of information. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fagdrag[edit]

Fagdrag is up for deletion because of 1) being a non-notable slang term and 2) the article is trollish in nature. It is the sole contribution of its sole contributor, User:Bjarkia. A Google search reveals that the term exists either in inflammatory environments, or by a different definition. V-Man737 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites no sources. Searching, I can find no good sources that document any such practice. (I discounted Encyclopaedia Dramatica and the dialogue uttered by one character in South Park.) Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed in Uncle G's footsteps and came to the same conclusion. CiaranG 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' for all reasons noted above and more. House of Scandal 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete, looks speedy-y to me. Dekimasu 13:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Wikipedia is not an Elvish-to-English dictionary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faidwen[edit]

Faidwen is up for deletion as it has no notability (supposedly meaning "land of release" in Elvish); at the very least, it ought to be merged with the article on Elvish in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Man737 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnomish dicdef? Maybe LOTR? Video game? source? Just nocontext all the way! SkierRMH,16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :: if "elvish" it oght either to be trans~d to an LoTR wiki, or deleted because there is no one elvish (though I do know that a guy who works down the chipshop swears in elvish) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, local used car dealer, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Choice Car Sales[edit]

Advertisement. Only contribution of User:Sarimali, besides some vandalism in an article relating to his name. V-Man737 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Grand Desert[edit]

A thinly-veiled (and trite) advertisement for the resort of this name, as a Google search reveals. Even with a restricted search, the results skirt the notion of "resort." V-Man737 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP (more restricted google search). Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ultra-Loser. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Ink[edit]

Faith Ink as of now is a soapbox, and seems to have been created by the owner or a close associate. If the company is notable (I've neglected my Google search), it would be worth a rewrite, but until then the article needs to not exist. V-Man737 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Falconer's formula. NawlinWiki 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falconer formula[edit]

Already has mention in Falconer's formula (which is better-maintained). V-Man737 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you see duplicate articles, your first stop should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD. Uncle G 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Oriented Wrestling League (FOWL Entertainment)[edit]

Family Oriented Wrestling League (FOWL Entertainment), besides being a mouthful, seems to be a bit of a vanity page. It is the sole contribution of its sole contributor, User:Mikey Genocide. V-Man737 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable local wrestling promotion. NawlinWiki 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non notable backyard wrestling "promotion". One Night In Hackney 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faspitch[edit]

Unreferenced local band. V-Man737 09:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn band per WP:BAND. Rockpocket 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Yuser31415 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fastweb.com[edit]

The article Fastweb.com is quite POV and reads like an ad. Either it needs to be deleted, or an unbiased editor should completely rewrite it. V-Man737 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough to pass WP:WEB (I found multiple hits through Google News) but a re-write might be necessary. Doesn't need to be deleted though. Jayden54 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source properly, per Jayden54. Additional comments: (a) The two existing sources in the article are directly linked with the subject, and (b) The reason given by the nominator for deletion is not a reason for deletion - tagging with Template:Advert may have been a better option. CiaranG 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, source, and expand. If it's notable, & it seems to be if only as history, there ought to be more to sayDGG 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete both, a7, amateur football team, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fc:ssl[edit]

I give props to the author of this page; it is very well-typed and it looks neat. The main problem is that it is about a local football team, and gives no third-party references. If the article is kept, it needs a bit more wikification as well as "references" and "external links" (making sure there is a difference) sections. V-Man737 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, does not assert notability (and rightfully does not do so). – Elisson • T • C • 15:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin, don't forget to delete Football Club Speke South Liverpool as well. – Elisson • T • C • 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - doesn't even give the name of any league they play in, completely non-notable. - fchd 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does actually say they play in the "Leisure Leagues Division One", a Google search on "Leisure Leagues" would appear to suggest this is a locally organised 5/6 a side competition ChrisTheDude 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, page seems to duplicate template. Also applying prior precedent as established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXX. No offense taken if anybody takes this to DRV -- in particular, if there's anything that needs undeleting to be merged, you need only let me know. Luna Santin 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Iowa Senators[edit]

This list simply duplicates the information found in {{Current Iowa Senators}} without providing any of the unique, useful information that would justify keeping it around. The normal process would be to simply merge this with the article it duplicates, but the template already contains all the relevant information and redirecting from an article to a template just didn't feel right. Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems rather pointless to have duplicate information Jayden54 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Neonblak 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does contain slightly more info than the template mentioned, but I think it could still do with being expanded personally. Jcuk 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above + The word "current" does not belong in an encyclopedia article, let alone the title of an article Bwithh 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is way more information that the template: it lists the home county. Also, unlike the template, the possibilities for expansion are endless. My personal feeling is that the template just takes up a lot of space and should be deleted. However, shouldn't this be called List of Iowa State Senators. --JJay 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, approximately 50 state/DC/PR articles of the form U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXXX were deleted in October 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, or merge into the article on the Iowa Senate, where it could easily fit. It contains additional information in a more readable format and is also a better base for expansion than a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I would be fine with merging the list into the Iowa Senate article to create a result similar to what currently exists at Alaska Senate. I simply do not believe it merits its own separate article. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Iowa Senate. Alaska Senate is a nice article as a model. If kept, it really needs to be moved to "List of Iowa State Senators" per JJay. I was expecting a "list" of two people.--Kubigula (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is to be merged or kept, it really needs to be cleaned up. I noticed a number of inconsistencies between the list and template. The template appears to be more correct.[39]--Kubigula (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of Iowa State Senators. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the list adds is the home county. Not sure that adding that is worth keeping this as an article. The point above about the list and template being different is an additional reason to delete. The template has wider exposure and mistakes are going to be noticed and fixed sooner. Also as others pointed out, why have the same data in multiple places? Put it in one place and then link to it! Vegaswikian 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... Addhoc 12:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current!? Oh, please, that word alone means delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polywel[edit]

Marked non-notable since January 3 without rebuttal Brianhe 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Caknuck 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott-Riggs[edit]

Notability has been questioned since November 2006. Less than 100 Google hits of "Scott Riggs" are associated when "105.3" or "KIOZ" are added. Most of the others appear to refer to a different man with the same name. YechielMan 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article definitely. There is a longer article with his name (correctly) unhyphenated at Scott Riggs (radio personality). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld syncope[edit]

Proposed: This article is obviously an attempt at humor, presumably by a fan of the show, Seinfeld. Very well done, I must add, but still a joke and should be removed. I leave it up to the first Admin that wanders by as to whether this is a candidate for Speedy Delete. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. All indications are that this is real. Not only are there are few journal articles about it, but "seinfeld syncope" is the term used by doctors who first wrote about it. — brighterorange (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As another administrator wandering by, I don't think that it is speedily deletable. In fact, I think that to fix the problem with the article doesn't require any administrator tools at all, but simply a rename to laughter-induced syncope, and cleanup using sources like this, this, this, this, this, pages 71 to 73 of ISBN 1405151099, this, and others. Uncle G 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename per Uncle G. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename "Laughter-induced syncope" seems like an excellent name for this article, but I think "Seinfeld syncope" should be kept, too, with a referral to the other article. Mauralarkins 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME It would seem that "Seinfeld Syncope" actually is ONE name used for this, as a Google search turns up some hits, but it seems that Laugh-induced Syncope is the proper name for it. I am going to reverse myself and ask for a rename instead of a delete. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I'm impressed to find that there are Wikipedians who are able to reverse themselves. Thank you, Bill, for restoring my faith in Wikipedia as an institution that seeks to share knowledge. Mauralarkins 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more impressive if I had Googled it FIRST but I was doing stacks and stacks of reverts when I ran into this page, and really had convinced myself it was a very well done fake page. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion[edit]

This book's independent notability is not apparent. I recommend a deletion, but there may be a sentence or two that can be merged to John Zaller, with a redirect. YechielMan 02:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: cited >1200 times according to Google Scholar, which indicates a considerable impact.--Eysen 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article was initially created by copying text from the John Zaller article; I have now made significant revisions (in fact, the main text has been wholly replaced) and additions. As regards notability in particular, the article now discusses the implications of the book for public opinion research and also sources a further article by Zaller that references the book. The book is a must-read in nearly all advanced American Politics, US Government, or Public Policy courses. The article could definitely use improvement, but it should be kept for future expansion and improvement. Black Falcon 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if souced Eysen's comment is sufficient for N, but we probably want a more citable source. If the book was well received , there are book reviews. Put them in. Or summaries from some of the review articles among the GS group. Either meets the technical requirements. DGG 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Earth Effect[edit]

Made-up expression. Description of a conventional montage which was certainly not created by Planet Earth. The two users who have done all but one of the edits (and I suspect they're the same person) both have a history of vandalism HornetMike 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music in films and in television programmes cues emotional responses in the audience! News at 11!
This isn't anywhere near how an encyclopaedia should cover this. It's a novel, and completely skewed, presentation of something that certainly isn't named this and certainly isn't confined to the single programme mentioned. Original research. There's nothing worth salvaging here. Delete. Uncle G 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made-up term, as Google finds almost nothing, except wikipedia results. Jayden54 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hmmm, 0 relative ghits... looks like WP:NOR. SkierRMH,18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. ShadowHalo 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A3. -- Steel 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable websites[edit]

Delete as per WP:NOT in a number of areas - Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links - this is just a collection of external links. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers - that's all this is - a guide to sites that are suitable for the PSP. Larry laptop 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: CSD A3: Any article consisting only of links elsewhere. Will tag as such. --Pak21 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks - CSD A3 is one of the one's that I'm not familar with - I'll remember it for future reference. --Larry laptop 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Note - this is the second nomination, the previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln.

I put this page to AfD for second nomination because of its biased intonation, also its controversial features. This article totally bases on a single view from a book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" by the late researcher C.A.Tripp. The book itself is among controversy and a lot of other biographists and researchers on AL's life have made counter-arguments against this theory. Up til now no one can bear out the tangibility of the thesis. As I've said above, this article bases on almost every proofs that Mr Tripp used to convince his idea, which leads to the complexion of the article looks like a script of original research. In other word, the article can be seen as a brief material of the book. Moreover, if this article exists, we must create another article called "Counter-arguments for SoAL thesis". Wikipedia is not a source which only reflects one-sided viewpoints. _AbelinC A usesobad 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the great values of Wikipedia is the comprehensive coverage that it gives to topics either excluded or neglected by other encyclopedias. This subject belongs in Wikipedia. Critics of its tone or content should, rather than delete it, offer corrective content. CoppBob 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is the comprehensive coverage, which doesn't mean that it must contain all the research on a particular personage or an event.etc. Every given information should have steady reasonings, which have been justified by factual evidence. The article is just merely an original research, plays no role in Abraham's biography. Also, the fact that this subject belongs in [to] Wikipedia or not is being discussed. _AbelinC A usesobad 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Although I see CoppBob's point, I think this article's content should be integrated into the main Abraham Lincoln article, to make it more accessible to casual readers. Walton monarchist89 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what you're saying is "delete and merge", but that violates the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User changed vote to keep, below, so I have struck out the "delete". — coelacan talk — 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoppBob's rationale. I really think this topic is complex enough that if it were integrated into the Lincoln article, it would wind up getting separated out.--Wehwalt 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You feel that this topic is complex enough just because it contains nearly all the proofs given in Tripp's book, in which he alleges "the two men shared the same bed", "his relationship with his wife was stormy" etc. _AbelinC A usesobad 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseTripp is the most prominent exponent of the theory. But he is not the only one. Personally I think it is garbage. But it is out there and should be covered at the length necessary to cover it in WP, which is probably longer than can be accomodated in the Lincoln article.--Wehwalt 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response: Of course I know Tripp is not the only one who agree to this theory, but you should remember that the number of researchers who disagree to it is much considerable, most notable is Havard Professor David Herbert Donald who has been studying Lincoln and the Civil War his whole life and has published his own book "We Are Lincoln Men" in 2003 and says there is no definitive proof of Lincoln having affairs with any men. This theory is still controversial and can't find any reconcilement among the reasearchers. This article is a brief version of Tripp's book, so should we add another one which is a brief version of Donald's book? NO. Wiki is NOT a place to contain every research around a person. Theories around Lincoln are many, including "Was Lincoln a racist?" Should we need another article on this, too? NO. Wiki doesn't welcome one-legged articles. _AbelinC A usesobad 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - given that this pretty much revolves around one book, why not just move the contents to an article about the book? Rklawton 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoppBob and Wehwalt. It's a notable debate about an aspect of his life too large to merge. It has its references well-cited, so it isn't original research. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: What do you mean by "It has its references well-cited, so it isn't original research." Do you need to be provided with other "well-cited" sources which are against this theory, I'll be glad to help you. _AbelinC A usesobad 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my vote. It's quite easy to view the references at the bottom of the page. This page is not supporting or denying the theory, merely identifying it and its arguments. You merely dislike the page because you feel it puts Abe in an unfavorable light. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder why you say "I'm not changing my vote." Have I hustled you into changing your vote? I just want to suggest you some materials that help you widen your knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. Moreover, I hope that you shouldn't mention the reason: "You merely dislike the page because you feel it puts Abe in an unfavorable light" since it's really worthless in deciding to keep this article or not. Your comment can be considered parti pris until you use clear explanation, reliable citation and tight-fisted ratiocination to protect your idea. _AbelinC A usesobad 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're commenting on virtually every keep. AfD may be a discussion, but questioning the motives of everyone opposite your side just seems excessive. You keep trying to play off comments as worthless, which I simply find annoying and a childish tactic. You don't get to discount votes, and I find the attempt sad. AfD does not exist for you to prove a point, nor does it exist as simple motivation. I will not go any further in explaining myself, as it has been done for me by those I have cited. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: "You keep trying to play off comments as worthless, which I simply find annoying and a childish tactic." First, yous should differentiate between the assessment about "a comment" and the thing that you call "a childish tactic". I use no tactic here, also I don't need to use it because my judgement is staunch enough to provoke your idea. I feel in vice-versa that it's you who play off the "childish tactic", in which you constantly mention my favor on Lincoln to scatter the prejudice on other commentors that I propose the idea just because I like him, instead of giving out "clear explanation, reliable citation and tight-fisted ratiocination" (as I mention above) to the dicussion. _AbelinC A usesobad 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you on this fact. I have voted keep. Move on. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is a widely-debated one by American history students. It's too large to merge, and is suitable for its own article. Perhaps it could be slimmed-down?? --SunStar Net^talk 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't saying the topic of the article wasn't significant - I agree completely that it belongs on Wikipedia, but I still think it could be easily integrated into the article on Lincoln. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseWell, merge is a form of keep, ain't it? Wanna change your vote?--Wehwalt 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pare down by about 90% and then merge to Abraham Lincoln. There is simply not enough material for it to be anything more than speculative, and such speculation, while may be appropriate on a biographical article, doesn't warrant an article of its own. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (book). If the article is mostly about the book, make the article be about the book. Then write a sentence in the Abraham Lincoln article with a link to the article about the book. Argyriou (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Frankly who gives a flying fig if he was hetero, homo, or a sexual? Jcuk 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Keep Rename, according to the argument proposed by Argyriou and Keep if his assumption, that the article is based almost solely on the book, is false. The article is badly written, the writer of an important source seems biased (he's a gay activist) and I think that Lincoln' sexuality is not important enough for us to have an article on it -- I don't care if he liked men, women, both or even goats as long as he did not act unethically ; yet I vote for a keep because it seems to be a topic that is being discussed. --A Sunshade Lust 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article does need attention. The argument predates the 2003 book so it isn't really possible to rename it to be a summary of the book. It should be made clear that many of the instances discussed as evidence are "as argued by Tripp", rather than stuffing him into an afterword. Nobile's counterarguments should be more thoroughly aired. But this is a content dispute. The topic is unquestionably notable, and I don't think the existence of the article per se is POV as the nominator argues, and we absolutely should not have a separate article from the opposite POV as that represents a fork. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the gay theory is probably bollocks, the fact that there is a discussion, nay controversy, is notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article. It sites its' sources thouroughly, it isn't about a hoax of any kind, and the article just needs to be re-written, not deleted. Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The crux of the matter is not that whether you find it interesting or not. Get to the main point and make another clarified explanation for your viewpoint. _AbelinC A usesobad 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dhartung's argument. Also, comments such as this one: "...I don't want people to have bad impression on Abe (the homosexual thing does spoil his image) since he's my hero" [40] made by the nominator show a bias against writing a correct, not to mention truthful, history. If Abraham Lincoln turns out to be gay, that's history. Forget your personal opinion of his "image!" --Dialecticas 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't deny that I have written the sentence, he's my hero and it's the sentiment from my part. However, that's not the reasons for you to against my idea. I have given clarified reasons and other reliable exemplariness to delete this article. If my memory is not bad, I haven't quote any words like "I love Abe so I want this stupid article to be deleted". Your work is to make comment and put forward your ideas which can provoke my argument. If your only reasons just limit to my quotion (which hasn't been written the full sentence), your proposition is worthless. _AbelinC A usesobad 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book caused quite a stir when it came out and the topic was featured on the cover of Time among other places. Unlike Abe Lincoln's encyclopedia, we don't shy away from controversy here at wikipedia. Let's not be afraid to cover important people in depth, and yes, that includes their sexuality. --JJay 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article proves nothing and further confuses people about the subject. And the dude is dead now so I couldn't care less about his sexuality.Sam ov the blue sand 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please don't call Abraham Lincoln the word "dude". It's a negative slang. _AbelinC A usesobad 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOV or neutrality concerns should lead to editing the article not AfD. Actually the article seems reasonably balanced. It does not say Lincoln was gay, it presents verifiable information about Lincolns relationships and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. AfD is not the place for content disputes. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It doesn't bluntly say that "Lincoln was gay", but the intonation of the language makes strong allegation to the theory that ""Lincoln was gay". The neutrality of the article is not only based on the mere affirmation but also on the writing style. It's obvious that the article just mentions reasonings which prove the one-sided thesis "Lincoln was gay", not any little information about the counter-arguments from other researchers. _AbelinC A usesobad 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have a problem with the tone of the writing style, why not change it? The article is called sexuality of Abraham Lincoln- any notable research on this subject is valid. If you feel the "Lincoln was 100% straight and happily married" arguments are not made strongly enough- improve them based on the research you refer to above. But deletion is not the answer. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: If you are curious about why I don't change the it, I'm going to explain it to you now. Firstly, if I change, maybe I must change the whole article, and then other editors (like Someguy0830, who only knows about the existence of this article in 14 January 07 through a discussion between me and Mr Lawton) will accuse me of being PoV, opinion-based, speculation etc and I really don't have time to argue with them, which can cause to long-term conflicts. Thus, I decide to nominate the article to AfD, the quickest way to discuss in light and may get to the result without wasting too much time. _AbelinC A usesobad 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you misunderstand. POV problems simply are not grounds for AFD. Read the very top of WP:AFD. It says to tag POV articles with a POV tag instead of listing them for AFD. And please read my comment right below this one; the POV-is-not-an-argument point is made again further down the page on WP:AFD. The fact that you can't be bothered to work on the article and the problems you perceive there is not grounds for dragging everyone else into an AFD debate. You are wasting editors' valuable time with what you are essentially admitting was a bad faith nomination. — coelacan talk — 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I open this nomination just to get the whole viewpoints from other editors to solve the problems. If you feel it a waste of time, just come back to your own work and I don't bother you to care about the problems anymore. The contribution is voluntary and I don't oblige you to post any arguments here. Cheers. _AbelinC A usesobad 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, listen, if you want comments and viewpoints that's what Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for. You are putting this article on the chopping block with the intention of deleting it, not getting viewpoints. And now that you've admitted it, it's clear that this is in fact a violation of WP:POINT. You are disrupting Wikipedia for your own ends, and it is perfectly disingenuous of you to argue that we can just ignore the fact that you are trying to delete an article. Leaving you to your own devices would mean that a good article, which passes WP:V and WP:N and in most editors' opinion WP:NPOV, would be deleted. Do not hold articles hostage to make your point. — coelacan talk — 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original research, on Wikipedia, does not mean "some author I don't agree with wrote it." The content of this article is derived from multiple independently published sources. There's no reasonable claim of original research here. As to POV, I'm not seeing the problem, but if there is a problem, WP:AFD nevertheless says, "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." So source more content from the writings of David Herbert Donald if there's a problem. There is no argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I offer only this; keep a biased article that is clearly in violation of wikipedia's NPOV on the suggestions of biased wikipedians. I say deletion of this article would prove that narrow minded thinkers can not flourish within wikipedia. Why not start your own wiki that only offers your point of view? This way when I need opinion and not fact I will visit your wiki (not). --knowpedia 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest that you actually read WP:AFD. Supposed violations of WP:NPOV are not grounds for deletion. I quote from the top of the page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." — coelacan talk — 10:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that typically deletion (or censorship in the case of POV issues) would typically show the opposite of what Knowpedia is suggesting. Deleting a serious, scholarly and well referenced article about a historical figure's sexuality would show that at least a narrow minded point of view can flourish in wikipedia and be the only articles left standing. Agne 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agne points to one original piece of work written by a biased author (subsequent articles written on the subject all source the same original work = same source different print). I do not in general feel that more than one or two verifiable sources are necessary for a good article; however in this case were the subject is dead and he can not defend or confirm the accusations against him, there should be a minimum of five independent verifiable sources. Everyone who wants to keep this article has an agenda and its not an encyclopedic agenda. "Being gay is so out of style it makes frozen yogurt cool." —Author unknown --knowpedia 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea that this article is biased is false. This is not original research, it's the result of a significant amount of source-based research, and should stay. I would add that this article is absolutely NOT entirely from one book. I read about this subject in a totally different book which cited it's own underlying primary sources. Wjhonson 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic that was the subject of at least one book, and numerous magazine and newspaper articles. I can't see any reason to delete, and only weak reasons to merge it into the already very long (85KB) article on Lincoln himself. Jeffpw 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Mactographer 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any reason, Mactographer? Jeffpw 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notable topic, mentioned in more than one book (at least four being referenced in the article under discussion, contrary to the nominator's claim that it's all about C A Tripp). And as User:Jeffpw two comments ago. — OwenBlacker 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Controversial does not equal Delete. This is an extremely notable subject that has been around a long time. The relevant details would be overbearing within the main Lincoln article. Any POV concerns are content related and should be discussed and dealt with on the article's talk page. It is certainly not a reason to delete. Agne 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I think that it's interesting, informative and VERY well written. If it cribs too much from one book then we should have other sources used more prominently in the article. If not, I back slimming down the articl eand including substantial info from it in the AL page. Elefuntboy 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, as I stopped watching Abraham Lincoln many moons ago, but I believe this article actually arose out of that article's regular editors' determination that the content not be mentioned there. A merge would probably not be tactically possible. And there are plenty of separate sources for the content, so it shouldn't be a problem to expand further from those other sources. As I suggested above, if David Herbert Donald has disagreed with hypotheses on Lincoln's sexuality, then somebody should source from his writings on the subject as well. There's plenty of room for NPOV balancing, and plenty of sources to use, so if it's not currently at that stage, it really should be expanded rather than merged. A merge would eventually lead to the recreation of this article if/when more sources are utilized, per WP:SUMMARY. — coelacan talk — 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my position to Keep - I wasn't trying to say that this topic didn't deserve coverage. Initially I didn't see why it couldn't be integrated into Abraham Lincoln, but looking at that article, it's very long and easy to get lost in. So I'd suggest creating a brief section in the main Lincoln article marked "controversy over sexuality" with a link to this page, just to make it more accessible to casual readers. Definitely keep the article. Walton monarchist89 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Having been a part of the great-and-glorious-edit-war of 2006 I can tell you why. There are some editors on the AL page who will simply not have it on that page. This page was most likely created as a way to mollify the battle. Wjhonson 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - It's not their choice whether or not to "have it on that page"; if it cites published sources (i.e. Tripp's book) then they would be unjustified in removing it. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aye, but such inclusion has been a tactical failure, and it never seems to stick around. To get it put there and for good will probably require WP:M intervention, and nobody has wanted to pursue that yet, as far as I can recall. Probably best course is to get this article up to exemplary condition first. — coelacan talk — 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based upon Wjhonson's comment, this article is a POV fork. See the Traditional marriage war. Nkras 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Please review what WP:POVFORK means. This article presents multiple points of view concerning Abe's orientation. — coelacan talk — 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Traditional marriage presented facts that were edited out in Marriage, and tried to present facts that could not be stated in Ssm. Nkras 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest you spam every page in the wiki that has absolutely nothing to do with your complaint, starting with this page, which you've done a fine job on. — coelacan talk — 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the suggestion. Nkras 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great example of WP:BEANS Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like this need to be improved, not deleted. "I put this page to AfD for second nomination because of its biased intonation, also its controversial features" is an example of precisley what AfD should not be used for. Why not withdraw the nomination and edit the article instead? Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know how much the article has been edited since this discussion started, but the article itself seems mostly neutral, and I don't see that the topic can be considered un-neutral if it has been in discussion for almost a century. --Jaibe 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic about an important Historical figure. There is much discussion about the topic out there. The article is too large to merge but needs work.Parammon 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 62.113.159.156 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter of 1976-1977[edit]

Page appears to contain original research, is an item of unsure significance, and contains a localized viewpoint.Fundamentaldan 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing an article on "Weather in Winter of 1976-77." But it would have to have a few sources, not the anecdotal materials in the current article.--Wehwalt 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although an interesting topic, it's not suitable for wikipedia at the moment, as it's all original research and lacks the necessary reliable sources therefore failing WP:V. Jayden54 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Also heavily POV as it only features the weather in the USA. --Folantin 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Folantin. I can see specific storms or the role of the weather in a historical event as being encyclopedic, but I can't see a particular season of a particular year as being encyclopedic. Agent 86 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename e.g. Great Winter of '77. We have an article Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 that covers a part of that winter, and there are other potential sources TIME, WaPo, etc.. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Folantin. Other places (yes there really ARE other places!) have weather too you know. Jcuk 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlqvist[edit]

This particular scientist is not notable and fails the WP:PROF test as well as considerations at WP:BIO and WP:SCI. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like an adequate stub to me. WP:PROF is only a proposal. Carlqvist seems to have been well-published, and lends his name to the Carlqvist relation.[41] --Iantresman 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to avoid second nomination Alf photoman 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - publications moderately well-cited by others. Argyriou (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a little different from the usual Proftest situation, because he does not yet have a high academic position, but he has done significant work. This is why there are multiple criteria, any one of which is sufficient. DGG 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, keep argument changed to delete during the course of the AFD. --Core desat 08:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Richardson[edit]

Probable non-notable bio, seems to fail WP:BIO. Although he does have an IMDB profile (link is in the article), he seems to lack other significant sources (at least that are provided here), so currently fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). He fulfills the letter of having multiple press articles about him, judging by the sources at the end of the article. However, this guy is just barely off the floor of notability.--Wehwalt 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One, yes (the IMDB), but multiple? Link 2 is the movie's official website (which even a garage production can have), and the third is just a brief summary of the films shown on a particular day at Cannes, no mention of Ben there. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I'll change my vote to delete--Wehwalt 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO, and I can't find anything noteworthy through Google or Google News. Jayden54 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I failed to mention that a previous revision of this article was about a completely different person named Ben. Please review this revision [42]. However, "the other Ben" seems to be even less notable than this one, so I doubt this will make much of a difference. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I voted to keep. The mayor guy.--Wehwalt 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor guy? what mayor guy? the previous article is about a teenage guitar player. Bwithh 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow my comment for Bill Robertson, discussed higher up this page, wound up here. Probably my mistake.--Wehwalt 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the nominator clarify which person we're talking about here? Bwithh 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was originally for the "current Ben" - the British actor/filmmaker. However neither appear notable and both should be deleted, IMO. If anyone feels that the "other Ben" is notable, however, I think a vote of "keep with a revert to the revision noted above" would suffice, no? My apologies for any confusion created here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source and reference Alf photoman 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayden54. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete --Tone 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who did a disappearing act[edit]

Although I can see the validity of this as a topic, it should really be a category not an article, and upon detailed perusal it seems to be a joke. Should probably be deleted, although I will be happy to change my mind if anyone improves the article. Walton monarchist89 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely original research, and completely unverified and lacks any reliable sources. Jayden54 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1, G10, and A1. The list makes no sense at all, as it's not even clear that these celebrities even disappeared from public attention, much less that they "did a disappearing act". It would take a lot more context even to bring this up to the level of being comprehensible. --Metropolitan90 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and likely to have POV issues, what does 'do a disappearing act' mean? David Copperfield or Lord Lucan? The Rambling Man 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The people listed here didn't do a disappearing act in either the David Copperfield or Lord Lucan sense. If the list were a combination of magicians and missing people, it would still be inappropriate for the encyclopedia but at least I would get the joke. --Metropolitan90 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was kind of kidding. But you demonstrate the point I was trying to make very well, too many interpretations for doing a disappearing act. The Rambling Man 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete WP:BOLLOCKS - fchd 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense.--Jersey Devil 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense. Confusing title. What kind of disappearing act is the author inferring?? --SunStar Net^talk 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't even think it's funny enough for BJAODN. Walton monarchist89 12:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. The article claims Greg Lake did a disappearing act after 2004, yet Greg Lake's article says that he performed in tours in 2005 and 2006. The "list of celebrities" article is the editor's only submission and is presented without any source or any real interpretation of what a "disappearing act" actually is. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent, unverified list which doesn't even explain what it's on about. Hut 8.5 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make disappear. Nonsensical unsourced list. The term has absolutely no context or meaning - why aren't Houdini or David Copperfield listed? Agent 86 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could see such an article being encyclopedic. But it would include the mysterious disappearances of Agatha Christie and Aimee Semple McPherson. It could be renamed to Mysterious disappearances of notable persons and then could include those who never came back like Judge Crater. Isn't there such a list already? SeeList of people who have disappeared. This may be intended to include people who vanished voluntarily and were found, like celebrities Agatha Christie and Aimee Semple McPherson. As for common ordinary people, millions around the world have run away at one time or another and are notable only for that action, such as the "Runaway Bride," Jennifer Wilbanks. Edison 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. This scope is just nonsense. Alternatively, Strong Delete per the nonsenseand pointless scope.-- danntm ^T _C 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, patent nonsense, unverifiable. Terence Ong 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G4 by Will Beback.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass[edit]

(Auto)biography of a mathematician who does not, I believe, pass WP:PROF. Previous nomination last August ended in delete, roughly a dozen !votes to two, and has since been blanked by Jimbo. I would encourage you to look at his own resume here to come to a conclusion about his notability. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more detailed in my nomination, especially as the previous AfD has been blanked. Main contributions appear to have been on Zariski surfaces, the importace of which I cannot speak to, but which didn't impress many participants in the last AfD. His web page lists 32 publications between 1980 and 1994; a solid record but hardly outstanding. His political activity is certainly non-notable (one editor pointed out that he was not even in the NY Times' of candidates). This article has expunged most of the name-dropping and dubious claims of the previous article, although a section on work with Solidarity has been marked as "citation needed". Overall, a mathematician of borderline importance with a tendency to WP:COI. bikeable (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make things clearer: the debate was blanked but the history is still available here. Please read everyone. Also this is not the second time but maybe fifth time the article has been made. See this list. Mhym

Weak Keep I think his political candidacy may give him additional notability outside academia as per WP:NOTE, although admittedly it does seem quite marginal for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ The work on Zariski Surfaces is quite fundamental.Outstanding students listed in Wikipedia.Political activity consistant from pre solidarity days in Poland to current run for US Congress District 22 of Florida.Created a coalition of independent candidates in Florida against considerable odds. The Ulam Quarterly Journal was a true milestone in electronic publishing and continues to exert considerable influence on research. Dr Piotr Blass

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above anon vote is the subject of the article. --Salix alba (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out accordingly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I think Blass is notable for the Zariski surface, although less so for the political candidacy (there are very many write in candidates in all sort of elections, no mainstream coverage other than basic candidate statements). However there is a lot of negative coverage, just google to find it. The article has problems with WP:AUTO being written almost entirely by the subject, the previous version deleted had a lot positive spin and name dropping. Currently the article is reasonable OK but there are sign of the same material creeping in again. I'd be happier if the article stayed very brief which would be inline with other mathematical bios of similar stature. The Solidarity stuff is new and I don't think it can be verified. --Salix alba (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have seen this all before [43]. There is nothing notable about Blass. As can be seen from the history and list of contributions by anon -- this is Blass himself. His electoral activity is below the radar. His thesis "Zariski surface" is cited the total of 4 times - not enough for notability as other suggested. The importance of the "Ulam quarterly" is unsourced and POV. The rest is all name dropping. Mhym 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~

Thank you Salix Alba for your objectivity! As for mainstream coverage there are two articles in our Palm Beach Post both available on line and also a couple of positive comments in the Sun Sentinel dealing with the 2006 governor election. Getting mainstream media coverage in Florida is quite difficult as you may know as as evidenced by the Sun Sentinel article. I am in the process of getting letters from the Michnik people about my role in the democratic opposition in Poland in the period 1961-1989 and shall make them available to the wikipedia community. Thank you for reckognizing the role of the Ulam stuff and collaboration with Grothendieck. Also several of my students are already in Wikipedia. Today is MLK day: We shall overcome! best wishes Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com ps I believe that my friend Mhem is at the University of Miami---Nobody is a prophet in his own country--- shalom Dr Piotr Blass pb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, given his numerous runs for office, ect. Mcr616 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepnotable as a politican.at least.DGG 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ (repeated vote) actual number of citations for piotr blass from google scholar is 91

and not four as claimed above . Also the book "Zariski Surfaces and differential equations in char p>0 " by Piotr Blass and Jeff Lang has sold thousands of copies via Marcel Dekker and can be found in most research libraries in America,Europe,Asia and Australia as can be verified by library search

as for the importance of the Ulam Quarterly Journal questioned above it contains several papers by Grothendieck,Jacobson,Erdos,Duncan etc clearly world class mathematicians

thank you

dr piotr blass

Mhym said there were four hits for "Zariski surface", not "Piotr Blass". When I did a Google Scholar search for "Piotr Blass", I got 23 hits. [44] However, you need to look at the quality of the hits. Some are duplicates of each other and others are completely irrelevant and inconsequential. For example, one of the Google Scholar hits is a letter sent to the editor of AMS requesting that people send Dr Blass notes so he can compile them into a book for an ill colleague. The 91 hits you claim are for a search of the name without quotation marks. The problem with that is it brings up hits for completely different people, such as many for Andreas Blass, Piotr Sztompka and Piotr Pieranski. That is completely misleading. Heck, my name searched your way brings up 629 Google Scholar hits! [45] Sarah 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having trouble seeing a viable bio here. This article is a completely unreferenced autobiography. None of the possible assertions of notability have sources. Therefore, delete per WP:V and WP:BLP. There's also obvious WP:COI issues. There are 227 (of 607 total) distinct G-hits for this name,[46] but it's difficult to find any that qualify as reliable sources, not WP mirrors or not apparently self-authored. Delete and re-salt. Sarah 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable mathematically. Gleuschk 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ (repeated vote) Thank you Sarah for your comments.

If you google piotr blass you will find over 20 000 hits with at least several thousand totally relevent.Since you are not a mathematician I apologize that my work is a little hard to appreciate as it deals with quite esoteric algebraic geometry. Still it has been and continues to be quite notable as evidenced by the interest around the world in zariski surfaces well documented in wikipedia. I am the founder of this theory.All the best Dr Piotr Blass

And as I said before, googling someone's name without quotation marks is extremely misleading. Searching my name in this way brings up 288,000 g-hits [47]. It proves absolutely nothing. Your name in quotation marks brings up 227 distinct (of 607 total) G-hits [48] Perhaps you would care to respond to that? What we are looking for are verifiable, reliable sources, not hundreds of hits for all the blogs and forums you've posted to plus thousands more for pages that are not at all relevant.

Wikipedia doesn't discredit an opinion simply because someone may or may not be a mathematician. Please deal with the relevant policies and guidelines. If the article does not conform with our policies, we cannot keep it. Sarah 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah for your stimulating comments.I certainly need to do a better job in explaining the relevence of my mathematical work.Perhaps my collaborators and students will also help me here.For example Jeffrey Lang ,Mark Spivakovski and several others have offered to do so. I will be happy to send to you Sarah some of my expository work.Perhaps my paper on Mathematics and Civilization would interest you? best wishes.

dr piotr blass

Request to mathematicians:Please take a look at my book:Zariski surfaces and differential equations in characteristic p>0,Marcell Dekker probably in your library since 1987 as well as my work in Compositio as you are evaluating notability. Also Jeffrey Lang ,Chris Skinner,Scot Flansburg are among my rather numerous students.Finally I studied and collaborated with Oscar Zariski , John Tate,David Mumford,Heisuke Hironaka, Alexander Grothendieck and Pierre Deligne among others.

I know that wikipedia will not wish to act in the sad spirit of a cultural revolution china style.

thank you for not deleting the piotr blass page in advance!

Galois Lives!

best

Dr piotr blass

Dear Wikipedia friends,

One more remark:The main proponents of delete and those who question notability have chosen to remain anonymous.We do not know their names. On the other hand those who support my entry are out in the open we know their names and their qualifications. I may be from the old school but let me say that I never paid much attention to anonymous letters and attacks against my qualifications. I hope that Jim Wales and the senior editors of Wikipedia will see to it that my entry is judged fairly. With zariski surfaces and ega 5 work firmly recognized by wikipedia and with my students such as Jeffrey Lang having their own pages it makes very little sense to deny notability of my work and political activity. Thank you Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com www.piotrblass.com

ps:I just looked at some of the talk pages of critics and proponents of deletion I found sarcasm and hi fives and taking turns to criticise and delete. I am asking Jim Wales to look into this situation. I am sure that the truth will prevail. Best wishes to all Dr Piotr Blass

Delete. Write-in candidacy for a major political office is easy to obtain in the United States and very few such people gain enough support to be notable. We went through this a long time ago when User:Jason Gastrich tried to use his write-in candidacy for governor of California to bolster a vanity bio. I could look up the exact stats again if anyone's interested, but Gastrich received about six votes. The scholarship doesn't meet WP:BIO. I suggest Dr. Blass devote more of his energies to building a real-world reputation because, after a previous article deletion and a canvas for support at WP:ANI, this looks like gaming the system. Durova^Charge 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. "Piotr Blass" has been deleted several several times.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, speedy G4 if possible. Self-promotion all over the place, but I do not see independent reliable sources that show him notable. (As a note, I believe recreating this article is an abuse of the courtesy blanking that Jimbo gave him. If he wants to be gone from Wikipedia, let him leave. If he wants to stay, then restore the previous AFD to its closing version, here. Courtesy blanking is for people who leave.) -- Fan-1967 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candadicy for public office without significant press coverage is not notable. The scholarship doesn't meet WP:BIO. This article only appeals to a very limited audience, namely those who already know him. No encyclopedic value. Any of his books, if peer-reviewed in reputable field publications may be notable for their own stand-alone article(s). If this article does stay, it needs MAJOR rework to achieve NPOV and wikistyle. Jerry lavoie 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hipster[edit]

Unsourced protologism. Repeatedly reposted speedy, bringing here for consensus decision. NawlinWiki 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, google search has no notable results RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Google Search provides plenty of notable examples of the usage of this term. Eiren 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only places I can find this term being used are blogs, forums and MySpaces. -- Steel 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable term, nothing useful through any SE (Google, Google News, Yahoo, Live Search, Ask). Jayden54 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef of borderline term. - Peregrine Fisher 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Protologism. ShadowHalo 06:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google "Nigel Hipster" in quotes yields ~~66 hits~~ 16 relevant hits. Not notable. Static Universe 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article satisfies a whole concert of speedy deletion criteria. It is probable stealth advertising for a product. It contains unsourced controversial material (allegations that xe is a criminal) about an identifiable living person. It has no sources, and almost no content that is actually concrete rather than vague innuendo. Uncle G 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy[edit]

This is either original research or a hoax, as there are no ghits on it anywhere. Also, the image is a copyvio too. No references or sources are cited, either. --SunStar Net^talk 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very likely a hoax. Jayden54 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. The Rambling Man 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Reposted guerilla advertising. (I am still waiting for my card to arrive - it does have a very attractive deal on balance transfers.) -- RHaworth 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if not a hoax, and even if encyclopedic, this whole matter could fit into a single sentence in the main Marks and Sparks article. Agent 86 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss point[edit]

Is this really an encyclopedic subject? If anything it seems more like a dictionary definition. PC78 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. No WP:V. The Rambling Man 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some references to widespread use can be provided. Slideshow Bob 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on welfare economics discusses the actual economic concept of bliss points. Just redirect it there. Uncle G 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs and not big enough for an article on its own NBeale 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagna cell[edit]

Nonsense. Deleted, but got undeleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has the distinct stink of WP:NFT, particulalry with only 40 odd Ghits. The Rambling Man 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no coincidence. I added the article because I found no appropriate Google hits. I was answering a science question on WP:RD/s related to Lasagna Battery effect.
Keep, alternatively merge and redirect to galvanic cell, as it admittedly isn't one of the more important article topics. For the record, the page was undeleted due to a misapplied speedy deletion criterion. The content is not nonsense and the use of the term is cited in a published journal. Femto 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar article, Lemon battery, was nominated for deletion about a year ago, but was kept. I don't know if this article is really notable in the big scheme of things, but it isn't nonsense and isn't something made up in school. (In fact, it could have made a good DYK submission.) Keep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little unsure about notability, but "nonsense" is clearly not a reason for deletion in this case. Merging into galvanic cell might not be a bad idea either. Slideshow Bob 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only source for the article content I could find is the article in The Physics Teacher. All other references I found simply mention the term and link to that article. Is there someone around here who can confirm that the article does not contain information that is not verifiable via that article? Tizio 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the article: it's about a lemon-powered piezeo beeper, with just a paragraph about aluminum foil sacrificial anode chemistry when used with lasagna. Also see the 3rd paragraph in this book review.
Weak keep; better yet, merge and redirect. When I originally prod'd the article, it was still in raw form and read like WP:NFT. Current version is sourced and obviously not nonsense. Caveat: if article is merged/redirected, so should Lemon battery -- smells like the same situation to me, and redirects are cheap. OscarTheCat3 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galvanic cell. Any 2 different metals and any electrolyte (potato, pickle, tomato, orange, grapefruit, yam, mud, vomit, cat pee, saliva, apple pie, etc, etc, etc will generate electricity similarly. There are potentially a vast number of such articles. Deserves only a mention in the target article. Edison 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not nonsense, it appears in journal papers, so the cause of this AfD is simply wrong. Also, note that the entry is days old, and really not yet complete enough to be judged by the standards of typical WP entries. Should I have added a stub tag? I wrote the article as a separate entry because it is similar to both the ice spike and lemon battery articles: a household science mystery as well as a known physics lecture demonstration. Also, I've seen another Lasagna Battery paper in Journal of Chemical Education in late 1980s, but I don't have a copy myself. After a related topic came up on WP:RD/SCI, I found that WP had no existing info, Google shows no info on www, yet it's discussed on educator list servers and articles are available in paper journals. Merge and redirect, as an example of electrolytic corrosion in the kitchen, galvanic cell isn't the best, nor is lemon battery, so possibly put it under cathodic protection or sacrificial anode, or even group it with ice spike under a larger entry on kitchen science mysteries. More important issue: this article is new. Perhaps I don't understand WP policies about stub-like articles, but aren't such articles usually given a chance to grow? Keep in mind that an article that's one minute old and one sentence long will certainly fail AfD if it's judged by the standards of typical articles. --Wjbeaty 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to say, that I am not at all familiar with the term myself, and as I am a science teacher I am familar with many such cells. As User:Edison suggest there must be many terms for essentially the same phenomenon so ~~merging~~ may well be a better option althogh I'll offer no opnion as to which article it should be merged with. Just as long as we don't actually delete it. I'll be happy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the title is misleading. Both Theresa and Edison seem to think the article is about a cell. It's actually about the explanation of a household mystery; an "interesting everyday phenomenon." But this phenomenon already goes by the name "lasagna cell or battery," and it would be OP for me to coin a less misleading version such as "lasagna foil electrolysis" or something. There of course are hundreds of combinations such as "potato battery" which form electrolytic cells. But this entirely misses the point, because there are not hundreds of different explanations for why the aluminum foil cover on a pan of lasagna mysteriously becomes perforated. (There is one widespread incorrect explanation though. Some articles wrongly state that acids in tomato sauce are the source of the corrosion.) --Wjbeaty 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've convinced me! I've struck out my "merge" comment and now think we should just keep the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked at the article and the tomato acid incorrect explanation is not in it. I think it should be along with an explanation of why it is incorrect. Can you add that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Nee[edit]

Not notable under WP:PORN BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (while I'm no expert in these matters...) this page does appear to fail WP:PORN BIO. The Rambling Man 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress. Edison 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRIP Linhas Aereas[edit]

Company does not appear to be notable. Stebbins 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ it's a Brazilian domestic airline serving 11 cities but my Portuguese is too poor to seek out decent sources. Can't see it meeting WP:CORP though. The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep due to good work by Morio and agreement with Ardfern . The Rambling Man 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately the proposer has not taken into account the context of the article, which is notable in terms of Brazilian and South American aviation and is part of a major project developing articles on all world airlines. We already have one of the most important and comprehensive sets of airline information extant and should not start to dilute it. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. Ardfern 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of the above. Incidentally, a more helpful nomination is to say at least something like "I searched in G and did not find..." Not that G is necessaarily the right place to look, but it indicates that at least minimal care was taken, & gives a starting point for discussion. (btw, there are 719,000 ghits for "Linhas Aereas", 170,000 in English. Perhaps it might not have been nominated at all had this been realized.) DGG 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep though I believe that maybe the proposer happened to see the article deleted by mistake. The majority of the region, North region of Brazil, where this airline is operating the airplane, is where the road is not maintained good in Brazil. Though Brazil has TAM, Gol and other bigger airlines, they are not operating the airplanes that are getatable to small airports of such a region. I think that the article on such a small/local airline is important for knowing things Airlines of Brazil, though, if talks about things of Japan, for instance, talks only about big airlines such as JAL and ANA might be almost enough...--Morio 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I was mistaken in nominating this article for deletion. I've seen so many articles for bogus/insignificant businesses, I tend to be skeptical when I see an article that is only one sentence long. I would recommend putting a message on the talk page saying that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. Thank you for the advice, DGG. In the future I will make sure to do a little more research before posting an article for AfD. Stebbins 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An airline serving such a large amount of destinations, some of them being isolated and are almost dependent on air service, is not only important, but seems inherently notable. --Oakshade 05:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheism[edit]

This article is unsourced and simply a list. On top of that, it assumes that 'atheism' is some form of systematic organized religion. Perhaps the author had intended the page to be about persecution by totalitarian governments? or by communist governments? or something along those lines? But in addition to the title problems, just look at the article for yourself and judge whether it is encyclopedic or not. The poor name choice, lack of citations, and lack of content/list format is enough for me to propose this deleition. Andrew c 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a category not an article; it doesn't provide any information that isn't available elsewhere. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially an attack page on atheists.--Jersey Devil 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any substantial content that might be on this page could usefully go into Religious persecution#Present Period, and I would encourage the article author to think about contributing there, rather than in this article. Tevildo 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atheism, Deism, or theism on their own don't persecute anyone. Something on persecution by atheist and secularist ideologies might be possible, but this doesn't seem to be it.--T. Anthony 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a vague list on communist discrimination, rebranded as 'atheist'. I really can't see what Tiananmen Square has to do with atheism. Hut 8.5 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary, unannotated, and likely POV, list.-- danntm ^T _C 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry I did not mean to offend anyone I just thought that persecution was persecution. Atheism is a group like any other, that can be criticized. Stalin and Lenin and Mao all engaged in persecution, their governments and they as individuals all professed atheism. As did estiblished atheistic governments engage in persecution like AKA Tiananmen Square. As for arbitrary, unannotated and POV etc. All I did was link to other Wikipedia articles ones I did not create, so I guess that wikipedia is really all of these things you are accusing me of.LoveMonkey 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that atheism itself is just a part of Communism. Atheism is also less specific than what we do in these cases. We don't do Historical persecution by agnosticism, Historical persecution by deism, etc. (I'm Catholic myself) Lastly the way you did it sounds grammatically wrong somehow. We have Historical persecution by Christians, although it's in dispute, but we do not have Historical persecution by Christianity. If you were to do this it should be Historical persecution by atheists.--T. Anthony 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree one, some of the persecution done to the spectrum of religions under atheistic regimes was explicitly done because the state stated it was athiestic. Read some of the links like Russia for example. As for wording-Ok then lets reword the article to Historical persecution by athiests instead of deleting it. Why delete the article rather then collaborate to "fix" it. Also if you have examples of Historical persecution by agnosticism, Historical persecution by deism, etc please make articles with the sources and examples I support you if you have data.LoveMonkey 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said I was opposed to say Historical persecution by atheistic regimes, which seems to be what you mean. The title you picked is just not the form we use here when it comes to persecution.--T. Anthony 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) "Atheism" is not a "group"; it is a philosophy, belief, etc. Beliefs do not engage in activities of any sort. Atheists or atheist organizations or atheist states can persecute. (2) However, I'm not sure that the intersection of atheism & persecution is anything other than a trivial intersection; in other words, is it causal? or even correlated? If no evidence for either of those, then is the relation between establishment of religion (or non-religion) of interest enough that persecution by organizations / individuals is notably organized by religious belief? If not, then it sounds like an attack on atheism. An article singling out atheism in this way should justify the singling-out.--lquilter 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lquilter, you should be aware that most atheists would claim that atheism is not a philosophy or belief either. It's simply the absence of theism. It's no more a philosophy than being "non-Christian" is a philosophy, or than "not believing in the soul" is a philosophy. -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right Silence -- although I won't get into it here, I agree with you in terms of a formal definition of philosophy or belief. But from a practical day-to-day perspective, atheism operates as a belief about religion ... But again, not the place to get into it. The point is that, as others have pointed out, "Atheism" cannot persecute anybody. --lquilter 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - T. Anthony, if you aren't opposed to "Historical persecution by atheistic regimes", then are you equally unopposed to my making a Historical persecution by theistic regimes article? -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I am equally unopposed. If you or anyone wants to do an article on oppressive theistic regimes in general, rather than specifying to one theistic religion, than that'd be fine. The only difficulty with both is that they'll be debate on what constitutes an "atheistic" or "theistic" regime, but if you can do it I'd have no objection.--T. Anthony 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you, Silence, and Scjessey. This idea behind this article is to say that a lack of belief in deities resulted in religious persecution. It is saying that the primary reason of say Communist China's persecution of Tibetain Buddhist is because China doesn't believe in deities. We would need specific citations making this association instead of a vague list. I think it is very important to have article about religious persecution. Very important. But I do not believe 'persecution by atheism' is the best way to approach this. Even Allegations of presecution by atheism seems a bit much. It would make much more sense to identify the primary organizational affiliation doing the presecution (fascism, communism, etc).-Andrew c 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The correct location for this topic is Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_morality. If that section becomes too long, we can make a daughter article called Atheism and morality (or similar) to discuss allegations that atheism leads to atrocities, or to religious persecution. -Silence 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment disclosing that LoveMonkey is the creator and sole author of the article.-Andrew c 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify maybe expand it in his userspace, but not if it will result in a content fork.--MONGO 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look at this, but have not had time to examine the article in detail. But I would certainly say that the title needs to be fixed, and probably more. It might be possible to say something like "Religious persecution in the name of atheism", but atheism itself does not persecute, any more than Christianity or Islam or Hinduism do, though there have been persecutions in the name of those too. SteveH 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: "... in the name of ..." is not the best phrase, though, and is not what this article/list is getting at. "In the name of" denotes something done for and because of the thing. The connection in most (maybe all) of the specific list items is indirect at best. I do think it's okay to identify organizations (including governments) by their official doctrines, if balance or causality/correlation are demonstrated. So the Soviet Union can be called an "atheist government" the same way the UK can be called a "Christian government". --lquilter 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but would it then be OK to list every atrocity ever committed by the U.K. as "Historical persecution by Christians"? Isn't that a bit misleading? -Silence 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think the examples are parallel ... I was commenting on the current list ("... by atheism") and noting that "... in the name of ..." is just as problematic. ... As for "historical persecution by persons of X belief/characteristic/whatever", I think these are obviously wastes of time and may need a general look in the writing-about-people category. It should look at how to handle lists / articles that are about some specific characteristic and address issues of causality/correlation in the context of attacks on people by characteristic. ...The larger point is that it's obvious that this list is an attempt to capture the frequent criticism / attack on atheism that Stalin & Hitler were atheists, and expand it as much as possible. To me, since that's an argument that a lot of people keep making, it's worth having it in wikipedia, and ultimately, I hope, annotating the list/article with explanations about why each entry is proferred and/or is inappropriate. I wouldn't therefore say necessarily to "delete" the article but it will need substantial reworking and retitling, and there needs to be comparable content on atrocities committed by institutions/orgs/states with various religious beliefs, in order to avoid POV problems; if that's not done, then it should be deleted. (Note, I'm certainly not saying I agree with the proposition that "atheists" or "atheist states" commit atrocities in a way that is somehow tied to atheism -- it's for the most part utter bunk, both historically and as a matter of semantics & logic, but hopefully in a well-written article/list, these points would get made. In other words -- the article has been clearly started by someone with a POV but that doesn't mean there's not a germ of an important issue to be discussed. --lquilter 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "germ of an important issue" is already discussed on Wikipedia; all attacks on atheism based on Stalin or, hilariously, Hitler (a devout Christian), are to be discussed under Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_morality. "Historical persecution by atheism" is not a remotely appropriate title for discussing anti-atheist propaganda. -Silence 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. I was asked to look at this article. The topic deserves inclusion, but the current article is unacceptable. Allow interested parties a brief period to bring the article up to standards and then re-vote. Majoreditor 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unacceptably vague topic. As atheism, unlike Communism, is not a specific religion, organization, movement, or philosophy, compiling a list of persecution by atheists (or, in this case, by "atheism") amounts to a propagandic attack article. It would be like compiling a "Historical persecution by people with mustaches" on the grounds that Hitler and Stalin had mustaches; a more NPOV article would deal with persecution by fascists or by communists, not by atheists or people with mustaches, as there is no verifiable causal connection between them and the atrocities. Moreover, having a mustache or not believing in God is not centrally important to any of the people on such lists, suggesting there is an unstated agenda of attacking mustachioed, or atheistic, individuals in general by making such an article. Besides, it's an unacceptably vague and uninformative title; would you consider Historical persecution by theists to be remotely useful or neutral? Or, since atheism is a term defined by its negation with theism, would you consider Historical persecution by non-Christians to be acceptable? -Silence 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ludicrous and nonsensical list of articles that appears to be nothing more than an attempt to brand atheists as a group of devilish persecutors. Presumably this is meant to offset articles like Historical persecution by Christians, but this article is misnamed and lacking any substance at best. -- Scjessey 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I get the idea, but the wrong approach was taken. (a) The title is wrong - perhaps something related to the persectution of religion by socialist regimes (not sure exactly how I would word it, but most of this list is under communist gov'ts). (b) This shouldn't be a list, but an expanded article, with references, etc. And no, I wouldn't consider "Persecution by non-christians" as a title, it is also too broad. I would narrow it. Pastordavid 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic too broad/vague, though "Persecution of Christians under communist regimes" might be viable. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. =Axlq 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just seems to me that if there are articles about persecutions done under religion that if it can be shown that persecutions where done under non-religion that would be balance. Of course reworking any article is a farcry from deleting it. As to all of the victims of the Orthodox church and the Buddhists of China and Tibet who where persecuted because the athiestic government made athiestic policies to against them, well you can deny and say that such things don't deserve recognition. It is plainly another to claim such statements are bias or slander or not true when they are a matter of public record and history.

1, 2, 3, 4. LoveMonkey 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first error seems to be that you don't even know what atheism is. Atheism is not irreligion; it's the absence of theism, not the absence of religiosity. There are many religious people who are atheists. Before you try to make any more articles about atheism, why don't you actually read some of the Atheism article so you have some idea of what the word means? -Silence 12:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously open to an article like this. I believe I created Historical persecution by atheists, which was deleted about a year ago. However this one in particular isn't really working I think. You might want to just add something to State atheism or Society of the Godless. Or after this is deleted you can discuss creating an article on "Religious persecution by secular ideologies" or something. I'd consider that when the last one was deleted, but I forgot about the idea.--T. Anthony 10:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Christian, Muslims, and Jews are the only ones who have "persecution by" articles. This seems like a potential bias against Abrahamic religions. It might be politically incorrect to say, but there were Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist (Emperor Wuzong of Tang), and Pagan regimes that engaged in persecutions.--T. Anthony 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. Conflating being an atheist and persecuting with persecuting against theists in the name of atheism is... bad. I also just have to point out that persecution of Buddhists by atheists (or atheism) is just too funny for me to handle. ~Switch ^t 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have to understand that in many societies Buddhism didn't remain in a purified non-theistic form. I'm not sure many schools of Buddhism were every atheist per se, non-theist is more accurate.. Now in Theravada the nontheism outlook mostly survived, but in Mahayana God-like ideals did emerge to some extent. See God in Buddhism. In addition many to most societies mixed their Buddhism with pre-Buddhist beliefs. Hence many Chinese maintained their earlier belief in Gods and mixed in Buddhism to it. To see Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist as "atheistic" is, almost certainly, wrong. To see them as even "nontheist" is perhaps misleading.--T. Anthony 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheist is a nonsense word and mere synonym for atheist. I've never liked it. Regardless, large numbers of Buddhists remained atheist, and at the very least Buddhism never had a personal God. Buddhism exists in theistic forms, but it's not exactly highly dogmatic in any case, and even theistic forms never focused on an explicit deity. The article's allusions to it are just silly. ~Switch ^t 10:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for many reasons, the first being that this is just an excuse for bigoted frothing. The title is also just wrong: an abstraction cannot persecute. Even if we change the title to "Historical persecution by atheists", that makes no more sense than an article on "Historical persecution by non-Irish", since atheists have nothing else in common than what they are not. T. Anthony's suggestion of "Religious persecution by secular ideologies" is much better, but even then I think the net is being cast too broad for a useful article, and what is called for is a series of articles dealing with religious persecution by various secular regimes, e.g., "Religious persecution in the Soviet Union", "Religious persecution in Revolutionary France", etc. --OinkOink 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the reverse of "Persecution by secular ideologies" or atheist regimes. Meaning if anyone wants a Historical persecution by theistic ideologies or Historical persecution by theocracies I would have no objection. I don't know how Love Monkey feels on that.

I honestly don't see the value of such a page. There is no legitimate scholarship that indicates a causation or important correlation between belief in God and historical persecution. (There are many studies that show an inverse correlation between religiosity and religious tolerance, but these are purely in a modern context, not a historical one, and deal with individuals, not regimes.) Endorsing such a correlation is neither neutral nor verifiable, and even gathering the data in such a format is tantamount to Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be like having a "Historical persecution by black people" article, and then rather than simply deleting it because of its uselessness and inherent POV advocacy, arguing for making a "Historical persecution by white people" article to "balance the scales". Creating a second pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article doesn't resolve the problems inherent in creating a first pointlessly vague and POV-advocating article; two wrongs don't make a right. -Silence 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't believe in any of the "Historical persecution by" articles. However if we're going to have them than I don't see why "by theocracies" or "by state atheism" is any more odd or objectionable than the ones we have. I mean Historical persecution by Christians could be seen as making a correlation according to what you indicate. If so it's making a correlation that is misleading or confusing. After all the title is not specifying and Christians aren't monolithic. So what Christians are doing the persection? If all of them, how? I mean were the Shakers or Christadelphians persecuting anyone? Or in the earlier eras how about the Saint Thomas Christians, who exactly were they persecuting? If not all of them, why the blanket statement about Christians in general?--T. Anthony 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is crucial difference though, the phrase "persecution by Christians" is at least used by people outside wikipedia, while "persecution by atheists" is not! --Merzul 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that all that convincing. Yeah the exact "persecution by atheists" isn't used that much, neither is "persecution by state atheism." However to say the second doesn't exist as a concept, as I was clearly meaning the second, is odd. State atheism is different and I specified that's what I meant. See "State atheism" persecution.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, something like "Religious persecution in atheist states" could be a well sourced article. I was a bit hasty in judging your arguments. --Merzul 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but rather than rush to make another new article, why not start with a "Religious persecution" section in State atheism, since that article is currently a stub? -Silence 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Historical persecution by Christians should also be deleted for the reasons given by T. Anthony. However, that's not the article at issue here. If someone wants to AfD that one too, that's fine with me. --OinkOink 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I'm pretty sure I voted deleted on this one.--T. Anthony 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons given by Silence, and also that this is basically just a list. I think that information about persecution is generally far better categorised by who is persecuted, rather than who does the persecution, unless those doing the persecution are a specific group of people working together (e.g., persecution by Nazis), or there is some other compelling reason to categorise it that way. So put the information in articles like persecution of Christians, persecution of atheists, rather than instead telling us about persecution of non-Christians or persecution of non-theists. Mdwh 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A arbitary attack page on Atheism, hardly encyclopedic--NeoNerd 11:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD G10 (no attack pages). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Brown[edit]

Non-notable. Mayor of city with less than 20,000 Bellhalla 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, notability is not established per WP:BIO. As written the article edges into memorializing a somewhat tragic and unexpected end, an affliction shared by the Minden, Louisiana article itself, which is full of obituary-type information for politicians and soldiers. See also the (arguably notable) Harmon Drew, Jr. and R. Harmon Drew, Sr. articles, the probably notable Tom Colten article, and the ~~very iffy~~ also-nominated-for-deletion Bill Robertson article, with essentially the same claim to notability (Minden Mayor) without even the tragic death. --Dhartung | Talk 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all essentially the work of Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), just to be clear. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that mayors on Wikipedia must be from a city of more than 20,000? I had not heard of this 20,000 number until Jan. 15. Isn't any elected official notable in is locality? Is the test for notability in the person's local area, rather than statewide or national? It seems to me that each article has merit on its own and that there should not be some kind of rule about 20,000 population.

Billy Hathorn 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mayors are notable. A hard and fast population rule has no basis in Wikipedia policy and if it existed would create more "presentism" bias (i.e. cities have more people now than they did in the past). Savidan 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Camptown 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown had an unusual life story. He was mayor for only a year. The way his career ended may be as important as his career. This is local history, and there is a place for local history on Wikipedia.

Billy Hathorn 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because he was mayor of a smallish town is no reason to delete his article. Mayors should be considered notable in almost all cases, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the references are from reasonable enough local newspapers and I'm not aware of a WP:MAYOR guideline that advises the population has to be over 20,000... Addhoc 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat pants[edit]

No evidence of notability, and some of the more humorous content seems to be verging on WP:NFT. Walton monarchist89 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nareklm 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, bordering on WP:BJAODN. The Rambling Man 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the afd was added 2 min after article was created not allowing enough time the article to be expandedOo7565 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence provided in the article that the band meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). Slideshow Bob 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean the litter box please (delete); doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failure of WP:MUSIC, and smells of a hoax. Meow. --Dennisthe2 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Static Universe 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result of this debate is Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Nishkid 64 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIK LAN-Party[edit]

Do we really need a page consisting entirely of links? Walton monarchist89 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. We Speedy delete those. Pascal.Tesson 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. If there is anything worth merging, it'll still be there in the history. Majorly (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Bliss[edit]

Duplicate of William Wallace Smith Bliss, a lengthier and more extensive article. PC78 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into William Wallace Smith Bliss and create redirect. The Rambling Man 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect No AfD necessary. McKay 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BiznezSearch.com[edit]

This web site does not have any greater significance than many of its kind and wikipedia is not a directory of commercial services. It fails WP:WEB. It has already been speedy deleted and recreated 4 times since last November. Tyrenius 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. The Rambling Man 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion A7, and possibly G11 as well. Also fails WP:WEB as well as WP:NOT per nom. Kyra_~(talk) 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant A7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investment and Financial Risk Management[edit]

Simple course description of an undergaduate course at a university not asserting its importance. In short, a vanity page of a lecturer. There is no encyclopedic content, acting more like a noticeboard. The course title itself is a simple rewording instead of "corporate finance", and the course is simply a Bachelor of Commerce degree with a specialization in corporate finance. Any encyclopedic information which may ever be added is already present in the better-suited articles on corporate finance, finance and Master of Science in Finance. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a specific college course taught by one professor at one university. WP:NOT a free webhosting service for professors. --The Way 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a page from a syllabus. Perhaps a redirect to risk management would be in order. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, positively asserts subject's nonnotability. NawlinWiki 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalynn Dior[edit]

No reliable sources for this article. No Google hits. I'm thinking spoof. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not a hoax, but doesn't meet WP:BIO. Slideshow Bob 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to show any notability and does not even try Alf photoman 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. AFD is not a vote, and the vast majority of keep arguments give no reasons why the article should be kept, and the ones that are more than just "keep" either admit or do not address the lack of reliable sources. The one reference provided does not give a name for the weapon in the picture. --Core desat 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek[edit]

File:Srbo-sjek.jpg

Yet more evidence. --Svetislav Jovanović 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I translate the Articel to the german Wikipedia. But there it will be delete because there are no references and they think it is a not true. So i think if in the english wikipedia is no referenc too it should be deletet because it can be a lie. Schlauischlumpf 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most information about "Srbosjek" seems to have originated from the english wikipedia site itself, and then spread out into various other wikipedias and lexica. Besides various serbo-crioatian discussion forums, there seems to be no genuine and especially no neutral information on this. -- Rhun 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there don't appear any sources, and such myths (if it is a myth) do a disservice to the victims, by allowing deniers to characterise the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the genocide in the same way.--Hadžija 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wartime atrocity stories must have reliable and verifiable sources. Many countries have denounced their enemies as brutes, sadists, pirates, cutthroats war criminals and baby eaters. Edison 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed most of the dubious material in an earlier cleanup of the article. But I did have doubts about the source, but wasn't sure whether the source constituted a reliable source for such an article. iruka 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - because my grandfather was killed by a Srbosjek. It does exist, and not everything is on the internet, you know. --Svetislav Jovanović 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I found two articels about the "srbosjek" where it is called "graviso", here and here. It is also explained in the german magazin Der Spiegel on page 117 in the magazin from the 1. Febuary 1988. --Schlauischlumpf 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found also a Picture on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. --Schlauischlumpf 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found another picture, see this Jasenovac photo archive, specifically the last image. It seems based on the illustration, that "Graviso" or "Grawiso" is written on the strap. // Laughing Man 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, there is a mention on an English language forum ([49]) that says that the Hitler-Jugend used a knife called the "Grawiso" so that might be another direction to take the search to find better sources about this knife. // Laughing Man 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThat picture on the holocaust memorial museum is sourced from Yugoslavia, one of the combantants with the state of Croatia of that time which brings into question it's reliability. Is there any mention of it from the official Jasenovac camp museum - I had a look @ the website[50] & couldn't find any mention of the Srbosjek. It would be strange if the museum, the alleged site where the weapon was used had no mention of it. iruka 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Information about this knife could come only from Yugoslavia. Please don’t forget that Croatia was integral part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later after the World War Two Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia was never in war with Yugoslavia since later didn’t existed during occupation by Axis powers. Do we have to presume that the Jasenovac camp museum is only museum in the world that has reliable information about what happened in this concentration camp during World War Two? During war between ex Yugoslav states, Croatia went trough revival of Ustashi ideology which in many ways affected the comprehension of history of NDH and its crimes. I don’t believe that any museum in Croatia could be objective about Jasenovac and its significance. What I don’t understand is why facts presented on United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website aren’t good enough to be used on Wikipedia. Do we have to presume that this museum couldn’t preserve objectivity or even that is spread false information about Holocaust. Is their criteria lower then the criteria of Wikipedia? I don’t think so. --Marko M 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.

Croatia was in conflict with Yugoslavia 3 times:

the first Yugoslavia was littered with ethnic conflict between the Croats & the Yugoslav security structures dominated by Serbs, prompting protests about the Croats plight @ the League of Nations by intellectuals like Albert Eienstein. This continued until the formation of the Banovina of Croatia;
In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia. It was in their interest to portray their military & idealogical enemies in the worst possible light, with the aim of increasing the size war reparations, but also to legitimize the Communist governments' role in saving the peoples of Yugoslavia from the horrors of nationalism. So various myths were invented, such as [51]. Hence the need for a multitude of reliable sources;

Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time. Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism. (2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of). If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Ahh, yeah? Assuming you are not trolling, let me address your concerns:

Your choice of words shows your (1) reliance on propaganda and (2) lack of knowledge on the issue. (1) Referring to your reliance on propaganda, the fact that you called the Serbs 'Chetniks' yet failed to refer to the Croat forces as Nazis (which is precisely what they were, do not even attempt to argue against this) is strong proof of your desire to portray the Serbs in a negative light, while leaving out a very negative fact about the Croat forces of the time.

Who said anything about Chetniks being a negative connotation?;
Dominant portion of the military of the first Yugoslavia became Chetnik formations after the country's dissolution - this is what the units called themselves [52]. The denotion "Serb" was to distinguish it from the multinational Partisans;
NDH security structures included the fascist Ustasha militia, whilst the majority were the non-political Home Gaurd that was the successor to the Imperial Croatian Home Guard. Hence one cannot use sweeping generalisations to describe a mixed forces;
NDH security structures fought against both Chetniks & Partisans, hence, they fought against two Yugoslavias, the forces of the then defunct 1st Yugoslavia, and forces that envisaged a second communist Yugoslavia. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using famous people to support your argument shows weakness, and once again, the usage of a propaganda tool. Also, referring to the horrors of 'NAZISM' as the horrors of 'nationalism' is a big no-no. The military of Yugoslavia was trying to save its people from Nazism (torture/death-no this is not propaganda, it is a fact), not nationalism.

Not propaganda; fact, precipated by the murder of Croat intellectual Milan Sufflay - refer New York Times article about the death of Šufflay & Einstein/Mann appeal. It's relevance was to provide evidence of conflict b/w Croats & Yugoslav forces which in turn goes to the point of reliability of "Yugoslav" (a.k.a Serb) sources. Quoting a "famous person" as you put it, means that the source can be found more easily;
The Communist leadership was concerned about nationalism - you may want to read some of the marxist literature. The federal nature of second Yugoslavia was to reassure the smaller communities that the Greater Serbia hegemony of the first Yugoslavia would not be repeated, as well as a first step of overcoming the nationalist opiate that had hindered the workers struggle for freedom. I'm sure you get the picture. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Secondly, the fact that when referring to the Yugoslav military, you mention the Cetniks as being the dominant part of it, and then say 'as well as the... Partisans', shows your lack of knowledge. My friend, the Cetniks formed the ROYAL Yugoslav army, while the Partisans the Communist Yugoslav army. They were never part of a single 'Yugoslav military' as you have phrased it (and hated each other, as I'm sure you must be aware of).

Pls reread what I wrote:

In WW2, the NDH security structures fought the remnants of the Yugoslav military (Serb Chetniks) as well as the communist dominated Partisans - the Partisans went on to form the second Yugoslavia.

How does this imply they were one force? I would have thought the "as well as" was a denotion of separate forces as well as explicitly mentioning that the Partisans were communist. Note, I had also included an interwiki link for those that wanted more information on the chetnik movement. Note also the recognition that the two forces represented the disparate 1st & 2nd Yugoslavias. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were aware of this significant fact, you have proven your lack of attention to detail and the importance of phrasing oneself correctly. Therefore, please cease to include such irrelevant arguments, which make you look bad due to your use of propaganda (wording) and your disregard for detail/correct information. This long reply was necessary, to set you straight, as you could better contribute to Wikipedia, and to let others know where certain faults in your reasoning might lie. Take this as a friendly pointer. :) Stop The Lies 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Don't know how to interpret the long reply that resembles a character assasination job, full of strawmen, and in response to a tangential point. The key point:

The issue isn't whether United States Holocaust Memorial Museum official website is good enough - they would have accepted the information from the communist Yugoslav state in good faith. It's whether the original "Yugoslav" source is untainted.

still stands & was unaddressed in your long reply. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not addressing that fact, I was addressing your faulty arguments, which still stands. Sorry. But to address that claim, there is no argument against the existance of the knife, what it looked like, what it was used for, who it was used against, that there was a competition involving the knife, etc. So since there is no argument regarding these claims, and only an argument regarding its name, why don't you make yourself more useful, and provide an appropriate name for the knife? Thanks for all your help. :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

But there are arguments against the existence of the knife - namely:

there were a number of myths propagated by Yugoslavia in order to delegitimise the cause of Croatian independence, the biggest threat to the states existance. Examples of such myths include [53], [54], & [55];
the main independent source, the holocaust museum sourced it's information from Yugoslavia: courtesy of Muzej Revolucije Narodnosti Jugoslavije - "Peoples Revolution of Yugoslavia Museum";
the source article talked about a competition with a butcher knife - something that was at odds with what is described on the wikipedia article. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the 1990's.

Croatia did not have a resurgence of Ustasha ideology during the war b/w ex-Yugoslav states, as claimed above. What they did have was opening up of the communist archives so that historians could have access to documents untainted by the communist party presure. iruka

Keep Ugly but true --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krytan 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Djus 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Kaster 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Banovic 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some things which sometimes lack some more information. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Medule 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on people, if we have article about Bowie knife (without any references) we certainly should have an article about Srbosjek. Existence of this gruesome tool is well known to the people from ex Yugoslavia. With few more sources this should be a fine article. --Marko M 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noone is making claims that hundreds of people were killed with the Bowie knife. And the srbosjek is not known beyond the Serbian realm. Also, that the article stems from the former Yugoslavia where distortion and propaganda & a recent war occured, means a multitude of reliable sources (not self-referencing) are needed. These standards are required to maintain the quality of wikipedia. iruka 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Srbosjek" is also good known in the croatian realm, although no one really know what it is, but the word itself is know good enough, so I suppose neither the serbs know what this word _exactly_ describes, and if the knife on this picture _is_ really it, and if the knife was used _under this name_ in the concentraation camps, as the article suggests, i.e if the contents this article should be kept under this name. As of now, despite the many "Keeps", the connection between the actual article title, the existing word "Srbosjek" and its content (especially the pictures), has not been verified to put it into a internationally accessible encyclopedia as a verified fact when no one can verify it. -- Rhun 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife. Of course, I need reliable source to verify this claim despite the fact that it’s historically correct. Problem with administration on most Wikipedias including this one is that administrators just won’t go further to resolve problem like this. True administrator would already be contacting United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. and starting enquiry about origins of photograph representing Srbosjek. What ever the outcome of this enquiry would be, it would surly benefit Wikipedia by confirming the content of this article or by denying it. The later outcome could lead to correction of information on the official site of US Holocaust Memorial Museum which would raise the reputation of Wikipedia. But who am I to teach you how to do your job. I’ll wait and see the outcome of this vote and do what ever I can to find sources that would satisfy your criteria. --Marko M 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following claim:

Knowing history of USA I could claim with certainty that thousands of people were killed with Bowie knife.

is almost impossible to verify. To be analogous to the article, the claim would have to say that thousands of people were killed in one small location in the US? Propaganda relies on half-truths, unstructured anecdotal experiences & unverifiable claims. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Velimir85 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep!!! --Milan Dinic 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sasa Stefanovic • 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep As long as we can find some irrefutable sources for this article, and keep it as NPOV as possible. Also agree with Hadžija about the holocaust denial part. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we have collected as of now show that this depicted curved knife existed and was used by the Ustasha, but not that exactly this knife was named "Srbosjek" (all the sources mention a "graviso" type of knife), and that this word was coined there and not later and not used colloquialy for any type of knife, like for example here in the 90s bosnian war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhun (talk • contribs)

SOURCES>>>

http://www.jasenovac.org/

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac/

1. The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books, 1992.

2. Witness to Jasenovac's Hell Ilija Ivanovic, Wanda Schindley (Editor), Aleksandra Lazic (Translator) Dallas Publishing, 2002

3. Crimes in the Jasenovac Camp, State Commission investigation of crimes of the occupiers and their collaborators in Croatia, Zagreb, 1946.

4. Ustasha Camps by Mirko Percen, Globus, Zagreb, 1966. Second expanded printing 1990.

5. Ustashi and the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945, by Fikreta Jelic-Butic, Liber, Zagreb, 1977.

6. Romans, J. Jews of Yugoslavia, 1941- 1945: Victims of Genocide and Freedom Fighters, Belgrade, 1982

7. Antisemitism in the anti-fascist Holocaust: a collection of works, The Jewish Center, Zagreb, 1996.

8. The Jasenovac Concentration Camp, by Antun Miletic, Volumes One and Two, Belgrade, 1986. Volume Three, Belgrade, 1987. Second edition, 1993.

9. Hell's Torture Chamber by Djordje Milica, Zagreb, 1945.

Anyone got those books to find the exact page numbers where srbosjek is mentioned? These books are used as sources for a site talking about srbosjek so they do include references, but we need page numbers. Stop The Lies 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Comment Trace back to the original sources that these books cite - I think you'll find it stems from the same tainted Yugoslav government of the time. Citing references that self-reference each other is unreliable. iruka 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that you own each of these books and have checked every single reference used in them? Either that, or you claim that a reliable source referring to a srbosjek does not exist, anywhere. Both of these claims, are simply absurd (since I strongly doubt you own each of these books, if any, and also, you cannot possibly have come across all of the sources in existance referring to the srbosjek), and therefore, I suggest you refrain from making such illogical claims. Thank you. :) Stop The Lies 05:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Let me spell it out for you:

If a number of different sources cross-reference each other, but are traced to the same origin i.e. one of the parties to the conflict, then thats a POV issue;

Yep :) Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

I have checked the Holocaust museum reference, & it is sourced from Yugoslavia - a combatant against the Croat state of the time;

Yes, Yugoslavia did fight the Nazi puppet state of Croatia. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies And prior to that the democratically elected government & people of Croatia in the first Yugoslavia, and after that again in the 1990's as the second Yugoslavia fell apart. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of NPOV, the sources of these other sources need to be traced back b/c if it comes from the same source, because it is well known technique of the then Yugoslav secretpolice to disseminate propaganda, and then through a process of constant re-referencing & re-quoting, it becomes legitimised by repetition - the if you say it ofetn enough then it's true phenomenon. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more sources are needed for the usage/purpose/appearance etc. of the tool, only for the name. If you could provide some, that would be great. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Non-Yugoslav sources (that do not in turn reference Yugoslav sources) are needed to corroborate the Yugoslav sources. This is because, as it has been pointed out, one side in a conflict will tend to portray the other side as bestial. iruka

Keep --Djordjes (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First reason for lack of sources: most of the people that know about the tool were killed by it... Second reason for lack of 'irrefutable sources': Serbs are largely considered an unreliable source by the rest of the world... Stop The Lies 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

You are voting for "keep" and at the same time acknowledging the lack of sources?? How does that work? Its not that the "Serbs" are a not reliable source, its the fact that we as of now dont have any third party aknowledging the authenticity of this word "Srbosjek" like we have for the genocide in Jasenovac. The Serbs and Croatians were engaged in a war and decades of mutual nationalistic hatred, and there was a _LOT_ of propaganda going on between them, so without third party review of the information (like for example, the books you cited) you just cant take it as a "proven fact" for an international encyclopedia. So how can you vote to "Keep" an article called "Srbosjek" when neither of your two pages mentioned above actually mentiones the word at all? I think its pretty clear what was happening at Jasenovac, and who was Petar Brzica, but evidence is also needed for the word and article title itself. When the references only mention that the Jasenovac-knife was named "graviso", why should the article stay as "Srbosjek"? Thats the missing part. Linking more and more sites dealing with the atrocitiese at Jasenovac is useless, when they dont identify the knife as "Srbosjek". Thanks, -- Rhun 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say sources don't exist. I said there is a 'lack' of sources, also known as an 'insufficient' amount, aka: NOT ENOUGH, not 'not any at all'. And to add to that, most people believe there is a lack of sources because the sources are 'Yugoslavian' or 'Serbian' and therefore, considered unreliable (you yourself are an example of this, as you claim that two sources -serbian and croat- are unreliable and not sufficient, when we all know if the American gov't issued a statement, it would be accepted as truth almost immediately). The word need not be mentioned, when the picture, which is clearly identified by two entire peoples as the 'srbosjek' is included in the source. In addition, I have come across the term (along with a photo reference) in books, which I unfortunately do not have in my possession any longer so I cannot provide their names or find the page numbers to provide an exact reference, therefore, the references DO exist out there, there is no doubt about it. This is why I vote for keep. Please read more carefully, thanks :) Stop The Lies 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

It is common practice with two war parties accusing each other of wartime atrocities to exaggregate the opponent's crimes and to hush up the own ones. The US itself does this all the time (genie weapons of mass destruction, kuwait babies torn from their incubators, concentration camps in kosovo, and so on), so I would take any of the news issued from the white house regarding someone theyre preparing a war on with a grain of salt. The same way I wouldnt trust any serbian or croatian accusing the opponent of some atrocity without _anybody_ neutral to this conflict verifying this. Example Jasenovac: the estimations on the number of victims go from 50.000 (croatian number) up to 600.000 (serbian number). Its fairly likely that the truth lies there in between, and that both sides try to fake the numbers in their "favor" still today and therefore are not to be trusted. So I acknowledge third party (like the USHMM) pictures of the knife, and a description of its usage as reliable, but wouldnt take the serbian-only sources as facts, when in this 60 years since the WW2 _NOBODY_ not even the jewish holocaust organisations cared to verify those sources. Thankfully, as you see, we have now gathered almost complete information about the knife, its usage, Brzica, but still lack _verification_ of the name. Its not enough having _one_ war party accusing the other side of war crimes, and writing books about it, you also need a third, neutral and unbiased party verifying those. Its a basic scientific principle. Hypothesis leading to third party verification. So it would be nice having someone verify that this glove knife was actually called srbosjek there in Jasenovac, and that it isnt a common croat or serb word made up earlier or later and used for any type of knife, so having "entire two people" claiming they reckognize it from somwhere, but not being able to back it up, is, like you said, not enough. Greetings, -- Rhun 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I am glad all this information has been found, thank you for all of your help. Now the article can be saved. There is no basis for a deletion of an entire article due to a dispute over its name. Many articles have their names disputed, but it would be absurd to delete them entirely for that reason. Therefore, the article can only result in keep. So, it appears there is a dispute regarding the name of the knife, but not its usage. Its usage was clear: to cut Serbs. Therefore, if 'Srbosjek' is a disputed term, perhaps some names for the article might be 'Ustasa Knife', 'WWII Ustasa Knife', 'Knife-formerly-known-as-srbosjek", OR we can simply call it 'The WWII Knife used to Cut Serbs' (referring to its use), in which case, we might as well call it 'Serb-cutter', or better yet, stick with the original, 'Srbosjek'. Anyone have any ideas for names, which I have not mentioned? Stop The Lies 08:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Given the gulf b/w what the sources say & what was written, then deletion of the article seems warranted. Also scrutiny of any purported sources is required since the srbosjek has the hall marks of propaganda, and given the sources to date come from a opposing side in a war. I can't help but notice that most comments on here claim the Srbosjek as a reality by virtue of anecdotal or faith factors, but very few reliable sources have been provided. iruka 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hall marks of propaganda"??? The only way you can claim that the srbosjek has ONE "hallmark" of propaganda is in its name. Which may or may not be true. We were not there when the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were killed at Jasenovac with the tool, so we cannot say if the term was coined AT THE TIME it was used, or later. Other than that, you have no argument. Please contribute to Wikipedia by providing what you think is an appropriate name for the tool, given the sources. Stop The Lies 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

You mean Serbs, Jews, Gypsies & Croats who were killed at Jasenovac. There is no evidence of a specific knife designed for killing concentration camp inmates. It's on the propaganda radar b/c it is as ridiculous as if someone was to claim that Srebrenica's Muslim victims were killed by a specially designed gun called something obscure. And you would not doubt be going, but it's a gun. Likewise with this alleged knife - some victims were killed by a bullet, others by a knife, other yet again by a mallet, then others were worked to death or were allowed to starved and others hanged. Incidently, questioning the notion of the Srbosjek doesn't diminish the suffereing or existence the victims in those camps. iruka 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Rename to Ustaše knife - There is no doubt that this knife existed, and because of this the article most certainly should not be deleted -- source from United States Holocaust Museum is a reliable source to keep this article, and when a source is found to confirm the name Srbosjek, we can remove the {{fact}} from the text describing that the knife was refered to Srbosjek in Croatian / the article can be renamed again. // Laughing Man 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There IS doubt or there ISN'T doubt? Judging by what you said later "the article most certainly should not be deleted", I am guessing you meant, there 'isn't' doubt.

Yes that is what I meant -- I have corrected my post, thank you. // Laughing Man 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:Marinko (also known as 'iruka') I will do my best to refrain from answering your replies, consider this a reply to everything you have just said and will in the future. You almost blamed me for trolling, yet it is you who is trolling. You blamed me for ignoring your arguments in my replies, which I didn't, when it is you who ignores my arguments in your replies (again and again), and goes off on a tangent to argue something very irrelevant to this talk page. And it seems one of your MAIN arguments is that MYTHS WERE CREATED, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE A MYTH AS WELL... Great argument, my friend! Wait no.. not really, you're sounding a lot like Descartes (when he determined the only truth is he thinks therefore he exists). Also, something so simple, where you mentioned that during WWII Yugoslavia fought Croatia, I agreed with you 100%, but since I mentioned that Croatia was at the time a Nazi puppet state, this was obviously not to your liking, so you decided to add that Yugoslavia fought against Croatia at other times, when Croatia was not a Nazi state (which is arguable), when you had ALREADY MADE THAT CLAIM, and I did not argue it there! This shows a personal bias, and that your arguments should be read very cautiously by other users. Stop The Lies 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Delete never heard of such knife, the picture jasenovac.jpg is not an evidence. Quote real evidence, or delete. Don't like provocations. --MaNeMeBasat 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehfuz language[edit]

I have not been able to find anything to corroborate its existence here. Perhaps someone else can Rmky87 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's nothing which seems to link this likely hoax article to Israel or the Arabs who live there. Argyriou (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assuming 'Palastinian-Baharistan' has nothing to do with the former british mandate have removed it. re 'punjab' have added to indian ⇒ bsnowball 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a listing at http://www.ethnologue.com/ which is where I would expect to find an article on almost any language. Could it be an argot or something other than a separate language? But in the absence of ghits, I have to !vote delete. --Eastmain 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete patent nonsense, on stilts. Argyriou (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. —An gr 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glad to learn that "The girls and women were stated as one of the rare combine of mixed beauty and rich divine features," though this observation seems to confirm that this article doesn't really have a proper subject to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. The puppetry is annoying, but the Keep argument is still the stronger. Herostratus 07:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vincent Black Shadow[edit]

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC, as there's no indication that their release is notable, and their record label is itself of very questionable notability (and even if sufficiently notable, cannot be said to be a major label by any means). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Performed on all 50 Warped Tour dates; also toured in Germany. Was Fuse TV's #1 video over Panic at the Disco, Timberlake, and others (not sure if this is significant enough). Lead singer hosted presented award/hosted Fuse TV's Chainsaw Awards (once again not sure is significant enough). --piff133 02:41, 17 January 2007

KEEP Watching their music video right now on MTV Hits, which is also available on the DVD for the horror film Feast. I'd say that's notable enough. --User:pogonrudie 3:48, January 17th, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.243.254 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep Seems like a notable band by reading the article and by reading the above comments. semper fi — Moe 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it affect your vote that piff133's only two edits are to this AfD discussion and that 63.199.243.254 forged a signature from pogonrudie? --Nlu (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Despite the fact that either:

1) Piff133's only edits to Wikipedia is this AFD

2) 63.199.243.254 "forged" a signature (I doubt he tried to forge it, he was probably logged out and commented under his IP)

3) Or that Piff1333 and Pogonrudie/63.199.243.254 may be the same user. Either way, I still think the band deserves an article.

But I do suggest that we slap a {{expand}} template on it so that people interested will cleanup an expand what we do have. Some of the comments above make it seem like we are possibly missing information on this band that may be worth noting. If you like, whenever I get the chance, I will try to work on it myself. semper fi — Moe 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:V although I don't appreciate the apparent sockpuppetry above. Note the all caps. House of Scandal 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will redirect to Religious perspectives on Jesus. --Core desat 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Christian views of Jesus[edit]

This is wikipedia, not wikiquote. Furthermore, the topic of this article is clearly covered in Religious perspectives on Jesus and Jesus and history. There was no reason to create this spinout article, and no prior discussion. Furthermore, it is extremely POV. Every quote is a puff piece about Jesus. Is it really representative of the non_Christian view of Jesus? Andrew c 18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral We have "Non-Islamic views of Muhammad". The neutrality problem can be dealt with. But it might be better to move this to wikiquote. --Aminz 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, this is merely a collection of quotations, with a single bland introductory phrase. Not even a bare-bones article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Religious perspectives on Jesus - non-Christian views are already covered and several of them have their own article. --BigDT 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Sophia 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good idea, but topic is already covered under Religious perspectives on Jesus - redirect there, wikiquote the content. Pastordavid 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Should be kept, but irrelevant in wikipedia. Put into wikiquote ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also an article Christian views of Jesus - very POV. It talks about how one group of people views Jesus. You can't have a NPOV article that discusses how people view a topic. The Christian POV (view) of Jesus is very different from the Jewish POV (view) of him. With expansion, the Non-Christian views of Jesus can be made into a good article. Goalie1998 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - just because we do not have another article by this title does not mean we do not have this content. The Religious views article covers the Christian and many non-Christian POVs. Then we have the series on Jesus and History which covers the scholarly/historian/secular POV. I believe because of existing content, there is no need for this specific spinout article. Furthermore, look and read the current article. If we transwikified the quotes to wikiquote, what would we be left with? And do the quotes actually represent tha various non-Christian POVs on Jesus? Or just selected quotes of non-Chrsitians saying good things about him? The reason why I am commenting is in reply to your post at Talk:Jesus. I wanted to keep all the discussion centralized. Sorry if I am repeating myself.-Andrew c 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize now that I wasn't being clear at all before. There should be an article "Non-Christian views of Jesus." But I do believe what is currently in the article does not belong. My point by bringing up the Christian Views of Jesus was to show that most of the content in that article is covered in other articles as well, but we still have it to organize it into one article. I believe that we can do the same with "Non-Christian views of Jesus." Goalie1998 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect/transwiki as above. One POV fork does not justify another. Grover cleveland 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above: POV fork; We already have the Jesus and history which links to several different viewpoints, many discussed already in Historical Jesus, as well as Religious perspectives on Jesus, linking to many religious views. There's no need to separate it like this. —Aiden 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Beit Or 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game music (Capcom)[edit]

Violated WP:OR. No citations for something that has to be. Hardly any activity on it in months. Also an orphan. NMajdan•talk 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I feel this information passes WP:V (information like the number of tracks and the publisher can be verified from the primary source) and that it is not OR, but this is a badly organized and incomplete and broken list which is probably not of any use. — brighterorange (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brighterorgange Madmedea 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of no real use Avalon 12:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the List of video game music articles that were nominated for deletion, there's no real point in creating a music database on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No use --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of information. Information is much more suited to the game articles in question. CloudNine 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas of the Supernatural[edit]

Fails both WP:N in general and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books). Tried {{prod}}, contested by Cimon Avaro with the edit summary "exsqueeze me, it even gives the ISBN." Having an ISBN number doesn't make it notable... Google does not help its case: it is for sale here and there but no reviews or anything. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator says it all. CiaranG 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... Addhoc 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --Core desat 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Ares[edit]

Violates WP:NOT as the entire article reads like a how-to for the video game. Article should be deleted and completely rewritten. NMajdan•talk 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everything below the introduction needs to go. I'm willing to spend some time re-writing this. In fact, I'd just finished wikifying the introduction as you tagged for deletion :) I'm very new to the wiki, so I'm not sure how the deletion process works, but I'm happy to edit the existing article to make it encyclopedic, rather than delete Superfurrycannibal 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete. Agree with Superfurrycannibal - introduction should be retained as a stub and the rest deleted. Madmedea 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually a "keep" opinion, given that it does not anywhere involve an administrator hitting the delete button. If you want an article edited, be bold and edit it! Uncle G 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete per previous entries.Itsmejudith 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag for "this article should be completely rewritten" is {{cleanup-rewrite}}, not {{afd1}}. AFD is not cleanup, and rewriting is a matter of cleanup. Please only nominate articles for deletion where an administrator hitting a delete button is the only solution to the problem. Uncle G 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it's notable to me, just needs sourcing and drastically cleaning up - no reason for an AfD. CiaranG 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs massive cleanup. Also, AfD is not for cleanup. --Alan Au 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AfD is not cleanup! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teltron Tube[edit]

A search on Google turns up 304 hits on this product, though it omits all but 90-odd; of these, several are Wikipedia mirrors, the rest being sales of some sort. The rest of the links are generally tangential mentions, largely to do with courses and the sort; in short, it doesn't appear to be notable. --Talon Artaine^(talk) 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a type of scientific apparatus that is widely used. This article could use a good rewrite, but it will remain essentially a short article. I don't know what the standard for notability of scientific apparatus is, but I would expect that wide usage in schools would contribute significantly to notability. --Bejnar 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although its only current purpose is for education, it has had some historical significance and should be kept. It could possibly be merged with some other article, unless someone feels like rewriting it. Hymyly^T@C 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep though it was not unreasonable to propose this for AfD. I accept Bejnar & Hymyly's knowledge about the wide use, but it should have been said in the article. DGG 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request (trying to blank the page) and per WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 05:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Paranormal Reporting Center[edit]

According to the removed prod, "Not notable - no alexa ranking, only relevant hit is the myspace page, has only been around since summer 2006, and as article says, this page is "trying to market its existence" FisherQueen (Talk) 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not a search engine, WWPRC is an online database archiving paranormal activity throughout the world, it can't be in Wikipedia because it is not high enough in the alexa ranking?? It doesn't matter how long it has been around, people wants to report paranormal activities and they want to know what WWPRC is and as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should provide the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studgate (talk • contribs)
An online reporting center needs people to report things, why they should not want to market their existence???, if nobody reports, there is no reporting. This is not even the point, youtube is only 1 year old but nobody says anything about how old are they, why??? don't know but it is a shame to delete an article about an online database reporting paranormal activities... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studgate (talk • contribs)
- Your question is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Uncle G 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were notable, the article would need a complete rewrite to remove the appallingly unencyclopedic level of POV, puffery, we this and our that. But it isn't. CiaranG 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their so called website is a form, they use MySpace, which is a mark against any self-respecting organization, the article uses first person, four Google hits. Spam. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it not be appropriate to speedy this per A7 and/or WP:SNOW? The author has now attempted to blank the article, but been reverted by a bot. CiaranG 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like advertising. CSD:G11? Too many "Ours" and "you" in it for comfort. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been included in the WP:PARA AFD noticeboard ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HW2: Pirates Mod[edit]

Self nomination Fails WP:NN. Article is about a mod for the computer game Homeworld 2, and doesn't state importance. Tuxide 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails (proposed guideline)WP:SOFTWARE as far as I can tell from the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Da Big Bozz 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, fails WP:SOFTWARE, google search for Homeworld "Pirates Mod" -wikipedia gets 74 unique hits, with nothing reliable. Mitaphane _talk 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor gun[edit]

This seems to be an extremely uncommon phrase. I can find no google result that is not derived from WP. There's a reference on the talk page to a use in a discussion forum. That seems to be it. Extremely rare slang, doesn't seem up to WP standards. Wehwalt 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources (so fails WP:V) and a google search provides 1200 results and nothing relevant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable neologism, definite regional interest, and failure of WP:V. --Dennisthe2 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is too specialized for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It is a slang term that is easily verifiable as it is widely used in significant parts of the the firearms community in the US, especially among the blogging part of the firearms community, but which hasn't become notable outside this rather narrow use. Topic thus currently fails the general notability criteria for WP. Yaf 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Strong keep. It is a common term on many gun mailing lists that are not simply of regional interest. Is Wikipedia only a free rendition of a semi-commercial encyclopedia, or should it be more powerful than this, capturing a wider, more pithy range of expressions, argot, and jargon, in addition to capturing more widely spread slang terminologies? If we are only duplicating the Encyclopedia Britannica, or wish to censure the content of Wikipedia, then clearly doctor gun doesn't belong in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if we are capturing the admittedly more fringe elements of society, with their rich argot, then there is value in capturing "doctor gun" as well. We have an opportunity to be much more powerful than commercial encyclopedias, if we so choose. Wikipedia is also not supposed to be censured. As for citing a google or yahoo search, as google and yahoo routinely censure many topics dealing with firearms, using such a search is often not an accurate indication of usage of many firearm terms. However, if one does a blog search, one can see there are moderately common usages of the term. Unfortunately, none of them can be cited here because their URLs automagically trigger the blacklisted spam filter and are auto-blocked on Wikipedia. Yaf 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Yaf originated the article and did a majority of the edits.--Wehwalt 12:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf, I do appreciate the correction in the regional bit, but my !vote still stands. I encourage you to change our minds, but keep in mind that there must be notability that reaches outside of the focus (firearms, in this case), and verifiability per the terms on that link. Semi important: it shouldn't read like a dictionary entry, insightful (and well written) though it may be. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely unverified and the search for sources doesn't look good. Also, Yaf, if you think this is worth keeping then by all means, please provide relevant sources that prove this. All articles must show notability and be verifiable, this topic doesn't seem to do either. This is not a place to discuss whether or not these policies are good ones. --The Way 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As blogs are not considered a viable source and are blocked on WP from being inserted even in comments such as here, verifiability is not possible to prove for citing common usage in firearms blogs due to their URLs being considered blacklisted and hence blocked by the edit verification protections in place on WP. This topic is not verifiable by the current rules enforced on WP. (This is not an advocacy for changing or keeping these rules, incidentally.) Yaf 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon actors[edit]

Pure indiscriminate listcruft. Creating a channel's entire list of actors is almost unlimited and unmaintainable. Would be better as a category. -- Wikipedical 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make into Category. & no category SkierRMH,19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize. Actor by network is bad precedent. Otto4711 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no cat. The list's definition is way too indiscriminate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT categorize I'm not sure about the list, but I know this would be deleted as a category. Similar categories have been routinely deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dugwiki (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (video game)[edit]

Rather minor game as far as I can tell, little information on the page or links from other pages. CyberGhostface 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a real game, and since it was actually released commercially, it's notable enough and information can likely be found to expand the article. Needs cleanup and expansion though. Yes, the site says it's rare and almost forgotten, but that's enough. And just because the article only has little information or incoming links is not a reason as such to delete the article... if the subject is notable, the article can be expanded. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've substantially rewritten the page, adding several references. This game has a significant place in videogame history as one of the first truly violent games, as well as notability now among the large community of Atari 2600 collectors as a sought-after rarity. Pinball22 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 07:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' South[edit]

No reliable sources and vanity issues. Fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have founded a successful record label which cannot be reliably found on Google[56]. Artist's full name gets zero ghits[57]. Wikipedia is not MySpace -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable in every way possible. Only claim to fame appears to be the inability to carry mixtapes around without dropping them. CiaranG 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this wasn't {{db-band}}'d - does not come within a mile of the somewhat inclusive WP:MUSIC guideline. No sources, no possibility of ever finding sources without interviewing the man himself and his nearest and dearest (but that's a no-no: WP:NOR), so fails WP:V. When newspapers and magazines and major websites start writing about Get-Wit-it-South, then we can have an article on Mr Kirkland. Until then, his autobiography should remain on MySpace. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Insufficient argument made for notability. on top of which at least half the material is pasted from a web site. Herostratus 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah W. Flake[edit]

Not every Civil War soldier is encyclopedic. This article, proffered by an apparent relative, is a doubtful case regarding notability at best. His service is unexceptional; his (I assume) prominent relative doesn't make him notable. The only thing that even brings him close to notability is that he dictated his experiences of the Monitor/Merrimac battle, and that account doesn't seem greatly relied on by historians. I found it on a long list of references about the Monitor. Wehwalt 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Someone who wrote a first hand history of one of the most important 19th century naval battles 52 years after the event might be expected to be a cited source in histories of the first battle between ironclads, so I am surprised to find few Google hits and no cites in the Proquest database of publications or in Google Scholar. He is apparently mentioned on p. 103 of "Covered with Glory: The 26th North Carolina Infantry at the Battle of Gettysburg (Paperback) by Rod Gragg," per Amazon.com. Edison 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not surprising. If Flake didn't have a post which allowed him to observe much, his pamphlet probably wouldn't have been too informative. And his memory likely had faded in 52 years.--Wehwalt 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hundreds of people served on the Virginia, and many veterans wrote pamphlets (most distributed locally). Being present at a famous battle isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the keep argument does not address the concern provided by the nominator from a policy or guideline standpoint. --Core desat 08:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Gigler[edit]

This article meets no notability criteria, does not cite sources, focuses on trivial information, and was quite likely created for self-promotion by User:Dr_dom. Ctu2485 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability standards and the case could be made that, indeed, notability isn't even asserted. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree that notability is not asserted. Dar-Ape 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dominik's primary interest on "our environment and how it shapes the human," which he explores through a unique and compelling style of portrait and documentary photography meets his Bio.DoDoBirds 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and for the curious, DoDoBirds comment is posted from here . Static Universe 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. The raw vote totals are 4 Delete, 2 Keep, 6 Merge, with two Keep or Merge. Since I don't want to merge the article (see below), I'll use the discretion granted by the latter two and count those as Keep, giving 4-4-6 as the Delete-Keep-Merge totals. There is clearly no numberical consensus to delete, and the Delete arguments are not made strongly, mostly being variations of "per nom", although the nominator does make a good case.

As to merging: first of all, some of the Merge votes are "merge with something", which hardly really counts; the merge target seemed to eventually focus on Windows XP. I don't see this as a good merge target, at all. If this material doesn't deserve its own article, how does it deserve pride of place in an important article such as Windows XP. Merging it into that article would be a significant promotion of the material, and I don't think that all of the Merge commentors thought that through. Further, Windows XP is an important article that potentially contains or could contain a lot of important material, yet has to be kept down to size. Merging in this material would potentially force the removal (or the non-addition) of more important material. The material could perhaps be severely redacted before the merge, but it's not clear to me how to do this, what material could be deleted; it all seems of more or less equal importance. This could be a failure of imagination on my part. Anyway, I don't see Merge as a good result.

On the other hand, I don't want to wimp out with a No Consensus. Ten of fourteen commentors thought that the masterial should be retained in some fashion, and that, along with no great weakness of arguments, leads to a Keep result. Herostratus 07:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FCKGW[edit]

Article about a CD key once used for pirated copies of Microsoft Windows. Previously kept as no consensus. If there's notability here, it's lost on me. It used to be, before Microsoft started cracking down on such things that you could search for serialz or warez and find your heart's content of CD keys for Windows - so I'm not sure why this one really matters. You probably still can for other things. The only source is from a warez website, so that's not exactly reliable. BigDT 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information is accurate and of historical value. H264 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is neither encyclopedic nor notable. Soltak | Talk 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge into... something - While the exact term "FCKGW" was not covered in the media directly (probably for legal reasons) the fact that a copy of Windows XP was pirated more than a month before its official release was. This article would probably work best as a section of an article on Windows piracy, or Microsoft PR nightmares, or something along those lines; while it is a notable event, it is probably not notable enough for its own article. As to the notability of "FCKGW" specifically, Microsoft specifically banned any serial keys containing that string for all their products, even Office. It may be hard to verify, but the act has promoted "FCKGW" to notable status in many circles. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see obvious reasons FCKGW would be banned as being part of a key having nothing to do with piracy (fill in the missing letter U, as appropriate). But is that really a notable event? Everyone has blacklists and I'm sure Microsoft has other strings that they blacklist from being in their product keys as well. As for the piracy ... in my college days, having a copy of a program before it was released was nothing. Guys on my hall played Age of Empires for a month or so before it came out. (Obviously, now, I have different values and opinions than I did at the time.) I don't know ... maybe it's a minor internet meme or something ... but it just sounds like a warez group wanting to promote itself. --BigDT 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was definitely notable, as it affected numerous other pieces of software that (arguably) had not been pirated with that key. As far as being a warez group promoting itself, that would be unnecessary, given that the group received all the attention it could ever want via media coverage of the initial piracy incident. "FCKGW" was just the most memorable part of the key they used. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are probably three unique sentences here that aren't in other articles. Being released early wasn't anything notable. Microsoft has a six week lag from RTM to Retail. All the beta testers - public and private (few hundred thousand), plus every Microsoft employee/contractor/vendor (about 200,000 people), so having a copy of XP before it was "released" was pretty boring. The only notable thing was that this key was a volume license. Big woop. SchmuckyTheCat 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more than just beta testers ... I've had Vista installed on a test box for six months because we have an MSDN subscription. Anyone on the planet with $1500 or whatever it runs can get MSDN. --BigDT 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. What next, serialz for Photoshop? Office? Flyingtoaster1337 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into something. I think it is significant enough. --Ihmhi 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but not delete. I personally found this page helpful and have actually come across this on occasion before finding it on Wikipedia i.e. significant. Merge it to Windows XP or soemthing. Big ups to the hacker who did this. --Hollerbackgril 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Intresting enough to warrent mentions but not all together too important since the key is now defunct with current versions of Windows XP Jamesbuc
Merge. Very informative; what happened to the pic of the guy holding up the fckgw disk? --⁪froth^T 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed a lot of merge votes but no further specifics. Merge into what? Soltak | Talk 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seen it referenced enough on other websites like digg and slashdot to warrant a page about. 71.34.10.45 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are anon users permitted to vote in afd? If so I'll log out and make thirty or so delete entries. ;-) Soltak | Talk 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go right ahead and do that, you'll see what happens ;-). also I said to merge into Windows XP article, you seem to have ignored me.--Hollerbackgril 04:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I missed that one. Stupid comment withdrawn. Soltak | Talk 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While I believe that this should not be a stand-alone article, I do believe it should be kept. Perhaps merge with Windows_xp. I think this article has enough merit to keep, but a blurb about a specific CD Key for Windows XP should belong within the main article. Perhaps under a heading for "Windows XP Release". If anyone has a better suggestion on where to merge this, please speak up. Commodorepants 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place to merge it is volume license key. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - it is part of the history of license keys, windows, xp, activation, etc. Pck (pun intended) one and merge it in somewhere. Should probably also be added to some list of 5 letter combinations. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Windows XP#Product activation. Pomte 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosier[edit]

Musician's autobigraphy. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless sources can be found to show his Notability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to find some independent evidence of notability. Couldn't. CiaranG 11:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smarandache-Wellin number[edit]

Non-notable and mathematically trivial concept. All sources are links to sites such as PlanetMath, MathWorld, etc, with similar depth of content to the article itself; Smarandache's own work on the subject is self-published and no papers referring to this concept can be found on MathSciNet or Google Scholar. —David Eppstein 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.--CSTAR 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in multiple secondary sources (MathWorld, PlanetMath, OEIS etc.). Lack of references in academic papers/journals is not sufficient grounds for deletion if other secondary sources exist. Neither is mathematical triviality - mathematically trivial concepts may still be encyclopaedic e.g. casting out nines. Gandalf61 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with that is that those sources (OEIS in particular) aren't discriminating. It'd be like claiming someone was notable based on being in three different phone books. Any academic topic that is anything like notable will have a dozen articles in journals--they've a very low standard for entry, really. It's true that lack of journal articles doesn't automatically disqualify something--but it's a good indicator that the thing isn't notable, in the absence of news stories or books on the subject. --Sopoforic 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot this is probably not a high-importance academic topic - this belongs rather to the "recreational mathematics", if I understand it right.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a groundbreaking theory, but still sourced and may be interesting to some people.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Copeland–Erdős constant. OEIS accepts almost everything with little or no editing, but not MathWorld and Prime Pages. There is also a reference (I haven't checked it) to a book by Carl Pomerance. Enough references to deserve mention for a math topic but doesn't need its own article. PrimeHunter 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reference in the Crandall–Pomerance book, in a long list of "research problems", on pages 75–82. Problem 1.86 is: "Study the Smarandache–Wellin numbers, being ...". --Lambiam ^Talk 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although the OEIS does accept a lot these days, notice that the sequence of Smarandache-Wellin numbers has a relatively low A-number, and that the entry has five paper references, five Web links, and Mathematica and PARI programs.
Comment. It does not have "five paper references". It has three. One additional item is the Pomerance item mentioned above; another is Smarandache's own collected works;. Of the three other references, two are to the "Smarandache Notions Journal", which is published by Smarandache. The last is from Abstracts of the American Mathematical society, which means that the paper was not published, but that the author wished to announce his result. Such abstracts are brief summaries of paper content; some, but not all of the papers were presented at AMS annual or sectional meetings. -- Dominus 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the five web links, two are to Wolfram Mathworld and three are to Smarandache's web site, including one link to his own collected works and one to the on-line version of the "Smarandache Notions Journal" I mentioned above. -- Dominus 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What if Smarandache is a Ramanujan who hasn't found his Hardy? And do we also have a low opinion of Kaprekar, who concerned himself mostly with base-specific concepts? Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:And, incidentally, having the programs means nothing except that someone bothered to write up the code for the series; I've submitted code for several sequences myself. --Sopoforic 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what Gandalf61 and Ioannes Pragensis have said. PrimeFan 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nomination. -- Dominus 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that not everything that ends up in the OEIS might be encyclopaedic (although I can't say with certainy either way), but I think that these definitely are. They're mentioned in a mathematical textbook, they're listed at Weisstein's site (Mathworld), and they're discussed on other websites; of course they're not as important a concept as, say, Hilbert spaces, but the claim that the concept is "non-notable and mathematically trivial" is simply and obviously wrong. Furthermore, I think we'd do well to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia: we can afford to have entries even on relatively obscure topics, so long as they're important in *some* way, and these certainly are. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think that these are important? What about the subject makes it notable? Because despite the length of your comment, all I can tell from it about your opinion of the specific page under AfD is that you disagree with the nomination. —David Eppstein 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion nominator, David Eppstein, has done excellent work on improving the articles on Sylvester's sequence and related topics. If I ever had to vote on something knowing only his position, I would vote the same as him. Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was a paper encyclopedia of general knowledge, I'd have to vote delete. But if this was a paper encyclopedia of mathematics, I'd have to vote keep. As it happens, there is a paper encyclopedia of mathematics that has an entry on Smarandache-Wellin numbers, the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, the paper forerunner to Mathworld. My opinion is that if it is good enough for a paper encyclopedia of mathematics, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Anton Mravcek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The author of that encyclopedia, Eric W. Weisstein, has personally searched large primes among these numbers. [58][59] (This adds to notability in my opinion) PrimeHunter 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I have a copy of that paper encyclopedia, and it doesn't actually have a separate entry for Smarandache-Wellin number. The concept, however, with a reference to the OEIS listing, is mentioned at the entries on Consecutive Number Sequence, Copeland-Erdos Constant and Smarandache Sequences. CompositeFan 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of the article is hardly useful or interesting, and we know well who it is named after, but as far as Wikipedia notability standards go, I would think the article is notable enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Who's Wellin?--CSTAR 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul R. Wellin at Wolfram Research.[60] --Lambiam ^Talk 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming Paul Wellin too, because of the Weisstein connection, but I couldn't find a source that confirmed this. Gandalf61 09:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry I've been away, but in my absence, otehrs have done for this article what I wanted to do when I first learned of this deltion debate. Numerao 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a test case for Wikipedia:Notability (science) when Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is surely a more relevant guideline for this AfD ? (answered at trialsanderrors talk page) Gandalf61 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On its own it seemed at first a trivial concept, but the notion of S-W numbers that are themselves prime is intruiging and there are some interesting refs which I'll add if they aren't there already NBeale 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination --Drieux 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Sacco[edit]

Hoax. A quick glance at Sport Club Corinthians Paulista#Current Squad 2007 for the sake of argument has no such player listed. Google search gets 32 hits, all from WP forks. Fvasconcellos 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless someone has some reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can find no such sources.--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing I could find to prove his existence. Qwghlm 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proved he plays under a different "Brazilian-style" name - certainly there's no player listed here with a name resembling his..... ChrisTheDude 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax: nothing can be found to prove this guy's existence. --SunStar Net^talk 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player unlisted at Sport Club Corinthians Paulista official site. --Bob 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's actually listed by the same author in June 1#Births as being born in 1988, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's playing for a Corinthians junior team :). In any case, not notable. --Park70 02:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Angelo 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G11 by Pilotguy. Tevildo 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zlinternational[edit]

This is a non notable web site. Fails WP:WEB. By its own admission it was recently created and the goal now is to get publicity. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia WP:NOT. Prod dropped by author. Obina 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (db-web). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to find a contractor[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I commend User:Construction Deal on such a well-written article, but wikipedia simply isn't the place for it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - perhaps Wikibooks or Wikisource? Not sure which one this should go to. Worth keeping per nom, no doubt, but not here. --Dennisthe2 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/recommend WikiHow to author Probably not suitable for Wikibooks or Wikisource. WikiHow is much more appropriate, but its not a Wikimedia project and uses a different licensing scheme (so transwiki is probably not possible). Bwithh 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, if the author hasn't done so already, I'd propose that it be kept nonetheless until it's transferred to WikiHow, with the {{db-transwiki}} speedy tag placed when that's completed. Yeah, it's not a strict transwiki, but close enough. --Dennisthe2 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not of any real use, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. I suggest that you should search the Yellow Pages (that's what Yellow Pages is for) and no need for such guides. Terence Ong 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a bad contractor can bankrupt you. There is a need for such guides... wikipedia just isn't the place. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I can come up with a way to re-write it. Make it less of a How-To guide. Any suggestions would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Construction Deal (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
We might be able to merge some of it into contractor... Hmmm but I really do thing it should be uploaded to http://www.wikihow.com/About-wikiHow. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like JS' idea, but if anything, I suppose linking from contractor to an article (if it doesn't yet exist) on Wikihow would definitely be the way to go. Damn straight we need this, at any rate - so no doubt you did a beautiful job here. =) At any rate, thanks for the understanding as we go through this. --Dennisthe2 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - I'll upload to wikihow (still learning all about this) and hopefully I won't have any problems there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Construction Deal (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religiopath[edit]

Editors have resisted suggestion to add sources. The article reads like OR and is basically a platform for a (admittedly recently coined) neologism. The NPOV tag has been repeatedly removed and the prod tag was removed. Without sources documenting use, this article is the perfect example of how to fail WP:NEO. janejellyroll 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely original research. Gan fon 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not only OR, but I'm calling WP:COI here. Check edit history on the article. --Dennisthe2 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a joke. KazakhPol 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, "Being a recently coined term, it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner." Nuf said. Edison 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not know if it is a joke, or an attempt to make a serious article; I hope not. It is a neologism attracting only 11 unique GHits.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete word that the article itself acknowledges to be a neologism ("Being a recently coined term"), that the article itself acknowledges to lack notability ("it is still not commonly used in a widespread manner"), and that the article itself acknowledges is found only in a source that does not meet the reliable source guidelines ("However, the effects of religiopathy have been discussed on numerous Ezboard message boars starting in November 2006."). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added noting that it is not an original source. Prior newspaper discussions of the word have been noted. --Leofff 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Leofff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. As a neologism, this is mostly self-explanatory, and inherently PoV. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Updated information would seem to indicate that this article no longer violates the neologism guidelines. It should be modified, but not deleted. - WikAA1 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — WikAA1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Agree with above. Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources. But it should be modified to remove the POV. - Talkingfish2 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Talkingfish21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Agree with above. Updates to the article contain proper references to primary sources.24.27.7.198
Delete - If the word is actually in wide usage (which you couldn't prove by me), it is certainly too new for the kind of analysis (division into "camps" and analysis of the "nature") that this page purports to report on. The fact that the creator of the article ("Leoff") appears also to be author of the only link (& reference) provided on the site makes it seem all the more that this is OR, and possibly advert. Pastordavid 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no citations merely assertions they exist. Addhoc 12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's my beef on deleting this. It's a real word, independently noted in verifiable sources. It has gained a prominence amongst a certain subset of the internet. It's a term and it means something. It describes a belief that is held amongst a large number of people. Wikipedia has 1.3 or so million entries. On what basis can this be legitimately excluded? madeup 22:03, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)
Keep I have substantially modified the article. madeup 23:15, 19 January 2007 (Nfld Time)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for being a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("Copyrights © 2007 Jeffrey Robert Adams All Rights Reserved") non-GFDL web page — the subject's own autobiographyon xyr own web site. Uncle G 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Robert Adams[edit]

If this is the abridged conversion story, I would hate to see the full version. First person autobiography / sermon. Is he notable enough even to retain the first paragraph? -- RHaworth 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer the question "no" and delete. Blendedfolk is simply not notable and its founder isn't either; I don't see anything that places him in a different class to any other catholic convert. Sam Blacketer 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dilpazier Aslam[edit]

Fails to establish notability. He was a trainee journalist for The Guardian until he got fired. Big deal. Normally I would suggest merging into Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the page already mentions him and the incident that resulted in his firing. Few remember his 15 minutes of fame. KazakhPol 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KazakhPol has nominated this for deletion because he tried and failed to have Category:Terrorism in Britain added to the page. He is on a mission to call people associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group, "terrorists," although the group has no known links to terrorism. Aslam was fired by The Guardian over his membership of the group because it is regarded as antisemitic, not because it's involved in terrorism. K-Pol has been disrupting Hizb ut-Tahrir for some time, routinely calling editors who disagree with him "liars" and "vandals," and this nom is part of the same pattern of disruption. Aslam's case is a significant one. A major newspaper firing a journalist because of the political party he belongs was an issue that made the news in the UK at the time, and it is still discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. This nomination has nothing to do with categories. 2. I removed references to HuT as a terrorist organization earlier today. 3. HuT's ties to terrorism are irrelevant to this discussion. 4. If you read The Guardian's statement you will see they said it incited violence against Jews, not just that it was antisemitic. 5. The accusation that I am disrupting HuT is ludicrous. SV needs to distinguish between editing disagreements and disruption. 6. Your last point is the only genuine one, although you have failed to provide diffs that establish notability. KazakhPol 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete KazakhPol may be abusing WP:POINT, if there's stronger proof of this, I may vote for a procedural keep. As for the article itself - a blogstorm in a teacup over a trainee journalist. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or an archive for recording blogosphere story-of-the-weeks. Bwithh 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep effectively losing your job because of your religion, & the type of job & circumstances, will make one notable. just needs one more source to meet 'multiple independent sources'. ⇒ bsnowball 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His religion? Are you serious? Do you know how many Muslim Britons work for The Guardian? KazakhPol 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; over and above the controversy surrounding his sacking from The Guardian (which has little press coverage outside that paper), his previous receipt of George Viner award from fellow journalists marked notability per WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makbool Javaid[edit]

Closer's notes
All editors in favour of deletion raised BLP issues which were not satisfactorily addressed by those editors in favour of keeping the article. These issues are the reason for deletion. This article is not to be recreated in this form.

Not notable. Held an obscure job in the British government, was apparently (falsely?) accused of being a member of Al-Muhajiroun, and got 15 minutes of fame. While I could definitely see articles on ex-HuT leader Zaloom, or the other leaders of HuT and Muhajiroun, Javaid is not notable. KazakhPol 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If he was in charge of litigation within the Commission for Racial Equality, is this not at least minimal notability?--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To clarify his past position as head of legal at the CRE, the legal department is one of 7 directorates that fall under the oversight of 15 commissioners (which does not include head of legal)[61]. Individual commissioners are listed by name with detailed bios on the CRE site[62], but the head of legal affairs is not listed in this way. I think only the chair of the CRE has any ex officio claim to encyclopedic notability as head of a significant quango. Bwithh 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete under WP:BLP. Checked this on Factiva and this lawyer was falsely accused of having terrorist links in the tabloid Sunday Mirror in 1998. This generated a couple of articles in The Lawyer, a legal industry journal, in which the Javaid denied these allegations. The Times followed up with an article explaining Javaid's defense of himself with the editorial note:"Editorial note: We accept Makbool Javaid's assurances that he does not support and has never had any contact with Osama bin Laden, and that he has never supported or been involved in any terrorist activity of any kind." Couldn't find any other hits beyond these four on this story. It seems that Javaid acted as a civil liberties legal observer of a fundamentalist group which may have subsequently exaggerated their relationship with him for their own credibility. Javaid's position in the race relations forum (which he was given in spite of the "scandal") is not especially notable - there are ~28 other members, and it doesnt seem to be a particularly important government body - it meets every few months to offer advice to the Home Secretary and that seems to be it. I would argue that there is no ex officio encyclopedic notability from being Head of Legal at the Commission for Racial Equality - this is not a particularly high bureaucratic position. Recommend deletion under WP:BLP, to avoid causing Javaid unnecessary embarrassment over a false accusation that caused a minor splash 8+ years ago. Bwithh 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep

Makbool Javaid is a prominent lawyer and an active islamist campaigner, who was a founder of the well known radical islamist group, Al Muhajiroun. He signed a fatwa calling for "the Muslims around the world, including the Muslims in the USA and in Britain, to confront by all means whether verbally, financially, politically or militarily the US and British aggression and to do their Islamic duty in relieving the Iraqi people from the unjust sanctions".

These are matters of public interest, and Makbool Javaid is an important lawyer and islamist political activist. This page should stay.

Al Muhajiroun are admirers of Osama Bin Laden. However, to suggest that he is or was a "supporter" is implicit in his association with that group, and is not of central relevance.

Al Muhajiroun members have been invoved in terrorism. However, Al Muhajiroun is not a terrorist organisation. It is wrong to suggest that a member of Al Muhajiroun is necessarily a supporter of terrorism. What we say about Makbool Javaid's political and religious beliefs should be limited to what is verifiable about him. User:Bukhari please sign your posts

Strong delete Bukhari, Please sign your posts. Mr Javaid was not a founder of the group, and was not a member. This article could be considered libel, and as stated before he agreed an out of court settlement in his libel case against the british, mainly tabloid, newspapers. He seems to be a victim of sensationalism, and a desire to attack government quango's by proxy, because he was linked to one. A google group chat forum is not a credible reference as to who signed what over 5 years ago, so there currently is not credible referenced claim that he signed that fatwa. It seems that Al-Muhajiroun got a bit over-zealos in exagerating their link to him, possibly even falsifying their link for their own ends. Aaliyah Stevens 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete.~~ (you have already said delete above.--- ALM 13:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)) The so called fatwa signed by this man, is from an unsigned, and unauthenticated message posted by an individual named Gerhard Lange from Germany, in a google chat group. This is not in any way credible evidence according to wikipedia standards of reference, so if you take this acccusation out, and the false accusation that he was a member of al-muhajiroun, this man is a nobody, not a notable. Aaliyah Stevens 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aaliyah Stevens --- ALM 13:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge & redirect. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by height order[edit]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthless trivia. Soltak | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing other comments, I still feel that this is not encyclopedic enough to warrant its own article. However, List of heights of United States presidential candidates appears worthwhile. I change my vote to Merge. Soltak | Talk 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the above rationales are entirely subjective, and have no basis in policy. For a basis in policy consider verifiability and original research: The heights of the Presidents of the United States are verifiable from books such as Joseph Nathan Kane; Steven Anzovin; Janet Podell (2001). Facts About the Presidents. Hw Wilson Co. ISBN 0824210077. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), which gives a list of the various physical characteristics (height, weight, hair colour, &c.) of all U.S. Presidents on pages 600 et seq.. It is not original research to collect and arrange the Presidents of the United States by height, since that has been the subject of research such as Paul M. Sommers (January 2002). "Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?". The College Mathematics Journal. 33 (1): 14–16. doi:10.2307/1558973. and Michael A. Day (2001-09-26). "The Presidents by Height and BMI". U. S. Presidents Homework Help.. There is no basis in policy for deleting this article. Keep. Uncle G 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unencyclopedic" is certainly a basis in policy for deleting an article out of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is definitely a basis in policy. Otto4711 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Unencyclopaedic" merely asserts that you believe that there is a basis in policy, without saying what that basis actually is. It is not a basis in policy itself. And "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. It is not a catch-all excuse for things that you personally think to be "trivial" and "worthless". Uncle G 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you know, I'm trying to find a nice way to say "this article is a pile of shit" and "trivia" is the best I've come up with. If there is not a specific document here that says "articles in an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic" then perhaps there should be, but to my mind it kinda goes without saying that an encyclopedia article should be encyclopedic and if it's not encyclopedic it has no place here. As for WP:NOT, I've read it, thanks. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" seems like a pretty clear endorsement that things that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia should be deleted. So to sum up, this article is a pile of shit that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia...in other words, a list of presidents arranged by order of height is unencyclopedic, trivial and indiscriminate. If having the heights of presidents outside of their own articles is by some stretch of the imagination a worthwhile topic, then List of heights of United States presidential candidates does it much better by actually including the heights of the presidents and their opponents and sourcing the information and the discussion of the "the taller guy wins" meme. Which not only makes this article useless shit but redundant useless shit. Otto4711 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your argument is entirely circular, and without any foundation in policy. According to your argument, the article doesn't belong because it is "unencyclopaedic", but your only definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "I personally think that it's a pile of shit that doesn't belong here.". Wikipedia doesn't employ that as a deletion criterion, for obvious reasons. The correct definition of "unencyclopaedic" is "not in accordance with all of our content policies". You have failed to reference a single one that supports the deletion of this article. (Whereas, in contrast, it can be shown that the content is both verifiable and not original research.) You've quoted one sentence that isn't by itself a reason for deletion, since the very next sentence, which you didn't quote, explains that the actual policy is the list that follows. Once again: Please read what the policy actually says. It is quite specific. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable, and interesting. Good almanac entry. Lists are almanac entries not encyclopedia entries. They just need to be verefiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's rationale. If there are academic articles (with the caveat that I think such comparisons are about as dubious as the skull measuring of bygone days) on the topic I think notability is established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates. If this article was ever to be completed, a lot of information would be duplicated, and keeping both articles together would also eliminate the existing problem we have now; namely, each article has slightly different heights for some presidents. It should also be noted that 'Homework Help' is not a reliable source for presidential information (it says so on its homepage).--Nydas^(Talk) 14:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, as per Uncle G. Terence Ong 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Uncle G. Also, the article does make a point about the Presidential height increasing over time so it's not redundant information to the presidential candidates height article which makes a different point. --Canley 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic trivia. If kept, this would set a precedent for all List of <X> by <physical attributes>, X could be celebrities, sportsmen, serial killers, etc. Height is relevant for basketball players, high-jump athletics, etc., but not for most occupations. Verifiable, but this should be outside the scope of wikipedia. --Vsion 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, for obvious reasons, and deleting a verifiable, not original research, article X solely because it might "set a precedent" for article Y is an ill-founded idea. Articles don't set precedents for other articles. Our content and article policies determine what we include. This is an encyclopaedia, not a court. That this list is verifiable and not original research does not imply that "all Lists of <X> by <physical attributes>, X" are verifiable and not original research. Each individual such list must be treated on its merits and with regard to what sources are available and how they treat the subject. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. I disagree with Uncle G, who implies that the list of examples of what is an indiscriminate collection of information is exhaustive. This should not be an encyclopedia article, but rather the result to a relational database query. -- Alan McBeth 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- Ordinarily I would say this is silly, but given the various discussions that always erupt around election time about how height is a statistically significant factor in voter preference, it might be arguably useful. --lquilter 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why List of heights of United States presidential candidates is the superior article, since it discusses not only the heights of the winners but the heights of their opponents and the "taller equals winner" idea. Otto4711 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the only idea to discuss. I suggest looking at the thesis of the journal article that cited above. Uncle G 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Referenced info, and interesting, especially in relation to the question of whether voters tend to favor taller candidates for President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with List of heights of United States presidential candidates This appears to be redundant with that article. Seems best to merge the two. Dugwiki 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This info is now redundant, since I made the table at List of heights of United States presidential candidates sortable by height, so this page is no longer necessary. There are a couple bits of info that should still be merged over, such as the graph, before deletion however. VegaDark 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger precludes deletion. It is one or the other. Uncle G 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, Merge remaining content. Then redirect or delete. VegaDark 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged The article has been merged and redirected to List of heights of U.S. presidential candidates Jjmillerhistorian 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:The Epopt as an uncontested {{prod}} --BigDT 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. L. Wysong[edit]

I proded this and no one touched it. Lacks notablity. Person who some pseudoscience in 1974 with a self published work(?) and nothing else. Subject's blogs and creationwiki are the "sources." PatriotBible 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by birthday[edit]

Delete - unencyclopedic trivia. The order in the year that the various presidents were born is irrelevant to anything. Otto4711 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear example of information which is verifyable, about notable people, but still not encyclodedic. What's next, xxxyyy? (removed so it is not next per WP:Beans).Obina 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next we'll see a list of Presidents by Zodiac sign. Oh, darn, I've given them ideas.--Wehwalt 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obina. Factual, somewhat useful, verifiable, notable, but entirely unremarkable and unencyclopedic. wtfunkymonkey 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Hmmm, off to create list of president by total score = shoe size + hat size + IQ + zip code. SkierRMH 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic listcruft, goodness, no. Terence Ong 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obina. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this kind of information should be database-generated in some future generation of mediawiki. it should not be its own article. --lquilter 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be possible to expand the article to include year of birth, and present two lists: one sorted by month/day of the year, and another sorted by birth year/month/day. If you also threw in year of death, you'd have an interesting set of tables that show relative age of each president, puts their births and deaths in historical context to each other, and that might provide some insight into how presidents born in similar years share certain cultural or philosophical traits. So while I agree that the article as is doesn't have much to offer besides a reader saying "Oh look, Harry Truman and my brother have the same birthday!", I think an expansion using birth and death years might offer some possibly useful historical information. Dugwiki 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information could be combined with List of United States Presidents by date of birth. It seems to fit the category. Just an idea. Jjmillerhistorian 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this list with the date of birth list sounds like a good idea. I'd support that too. Dugwiki 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article a while ago when I was still a little confused about Wikipedia's policies. I would agree with a move to the birthday article - and sorry about the conflict. Mrmaroon25 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged and Redirected The article has been merged with List of United States Presidents by date of birth. The Birthday article has been redirected to this. Jjmillerhistorian 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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