Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

David Cullen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability, links, references. Just an advertisment to their own site. Irishjp 15:14, 19 July 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} 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shia Muslims

The page is a collection of internal links in violation of WP:NOT#LINK and is a list persons only loosely associated in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. There is also no assertion of notability and there is already a list of notable Shia muslims in the Shia Islam article. The list seems like it can be automatically accomplished by the use of an appropriate category. JJLatWiki 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article serves a useful purposes in relation to an encyclopedic understanding of Shia Islam, and those people socially connected with it in both the religious AND the ethnic sense. I could no more fathom or understand the purpose behind the selective deletion of this article, than I could understand the logic behind a deletion of the List of Sikhs, the Lists of Jews, or the List of Latter Day Saints. Padishah5000 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are an estimated 130 to 190 million Shia Muslims. Now imagine including them all on a list. Far too large a set to make a feasible, useful, or encyclopedic list. As for the other lists mentioned by Padishah5000, I'd argue to delete them too, but WP:WAX. —David Eppstein 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, and of course, I would hope the original author of the article had intended it for notable Shia only! Padishah5000

Comment - I agree with David Eppstein regarding the other similar lists. I put a proposal for deletion on a Catholic list, and I would support practically any similar nomination. Lists like this are better achieved through the use of categories. In my opinion, even notable members of such a list don't justify such a list. --JJLatWiki 02:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make a really good case, and you convinced me. In all fairness, these types of lists do add nothing but clutter to Wikipedia. Good luck trying to get other lists deleted, though. By all means, leave me a message on my talk page if you intend to delete other such lists, and seek extra input. Padishah5000 08:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will notify you for every such list I propose for deletion or nominate for AfD. Guidelines say a subst:prod tag is the preferred first step before AfD, when I notify you, I suggest you put those articles on your watchlist so you will see if anyone removes the tag. If anyone else involved in this debate would like to be notified of similar proposals or nominations, you can add your username to my talk page. --JJLatWiki 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Shia Islam. That article handles the subject of noteworthy adherants to Shia Islam much better than this indiscriminate, uncited list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that article falls very short in many regards, and needs the aid of a knowledgeable academic. Padishah5000 08:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Sefringle^Talk 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (based on current title), maybe it should be in a category instead or add the term notable to the article title.--JForget 15:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category might work. Padishah5000 08:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted - no assertation of notability.. Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sze kui ng

Neither independent nor reliable sources, notability not established. Of course, if he had indeed proven the Riemann hypothesis last year, as he claims in the linked text, he would by now be one of the most famous mathematicians alive (this is one of the hardest and best known problems in mathematics, unsolved since the 19th century). But this is not a peer-reviewed paper (Arxiv.org accepts almost all uploaded eprints, but the fact that they classified this paper as "General mathematics" rather than putting it in its specific category is a more than slight hint that they had their doubts, see the correspoding remark in the ArXiv article). High on a tree 23:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC) PS: The article Chun Xuan Jiang by the same editor has been speedily deleted, as CSD A7.[reply]

Speedy-A7, the creator of the article demonstrated little understanding of wikipedia policies, and this is reflected in the article.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Cronholm, tagged Rackabello 01:15, 20 July 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 (WP:CSD#G7) by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 03:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Mace

Procedural nomination -- a prod was contested. The topic of the article does not seem to meet notability for books. Iknowyourider (t c) 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This book is amazing. It brings to light the Shashou Jiang. Check out this link [1] The person who recommended this book for deletion is obviously not aware of its popularity or the subject matter. Apparently they delete just to delete. Why would they delete this book and not any of the others? What an ignoramus to delete this novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.62.236 (talk)

That's not ignoramus at all. The book just doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We can't include everything here. I'm sure it's a good book, it's just not notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my favorite book to come out in a long time. It is also neat because it was my first article on wikipedia that I was able to put up. If you want to take it down go ahead. I will never come to wikipedia again. You guys are biased or something. Why are you deleting this post? You said you want to have a discussion about it. Lets discuss. I did the best I could with putting up my first article. Add to it if you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.187.62.236 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the contester of the prod was kind enough to (ahem) post some claimed sources directly to my User page. The sources are here: [2] [3]. While the articles do contain content on the phrase "assassin's mace", they do not contain any content related to the book under consideration. Iknowyourider (t c) 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "Assassin's mace" is a notable concept discussed in various Chinese and English sources and may deserve an article; the book "Assassin's Mace" by Evan Pedone is clearly non-notable (no independent book reviews, etc.), with 25 GHits [4], printed by PublishAmerica (close enough to a vanity house as to make no difference), and the top non-retailer, non-wikipedia hit is the author's MySpace page. cab 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CaliforniaAliBaba you are a numbskull. I have already said you can delete this article if you guys like. It was my first article on wikipedia and not a big deal to me. I just liked the dang book.

You know instead of attacking one of your users which I feel this is you should of pointed me to Wikinews. You guys have a news site for stuff that is temporary. Obviously this is a new book. God forbid I post anything else on your site and it comes under this kind of scrutiny.

I created this article being a fan of a book and at the time respecting wikipedia. After this debate and the lynching by wikipedia editors I say take it down. You have my permission. delete the article. You guys obviously have nothing better to do. Take it down. It really is not that big of a deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.187.62.236 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The only one posing this discussion as "us versus them" is, well, you. (And now, I suppose, me. But I digress.) The suggested deletion of the article is nothing personal against you, and is nothing against the book. It simply does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia's goal is to build an encyclopedia -- and that means it can't include absolutely everything. Newcomers do sometimes find Wikipedia's processes to be somewhat intimidating, but to be fair, it's all documented, and in fairly simple terms. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iknowyourrider I appreciate you saying it is not an attack against me. I understand. I cant argue some of the things you have said because I dont even know what you guys are talking about. I am ok with you taking down the article if it doesnt meet your standards.

I suggest you read WP:CIVIL instead of going around and calling other people "ignoramus" and "numbskull". After you're done with that, try WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, which are the basic standards for what kinds of topics deserve to have a Wikipedia article. cab 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author assents to deletion, article tagged with {{db-author}}. --Dhartung | Talk 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books fails the criteria set in WP:BK Corpx 02:37, 20 July 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.

Ryan O'Hara

The result was Keep. Non vandlised version is not a hoax and passes WP:BIO ExtraDry 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is a hoax.~~ Jauerback 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is not a hoax. Jauerback 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously the current bio is a hoax, however if you look at the original version of the page, he's still not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't he a rugby player...Lemonflash ^talk 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current bio is a hoax, but the original person isn't notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have reverted the vandalism to the previous version of the article. Contributors to this AFD should look at the version of the article that discusses the Australian rugby league player, and not the vandalized version that claims the subject is an “American race car driver, actor and director.” ●DanMS • Talk 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There are three different "versions" of this article? Well, if the current version is real, then I change my vote to Keep. Jauerback 01:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the league player under WP:BIO. He is a professional sports person as per this article. [5]. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfils WP:BIO as a professional sportsperson Recurring dreams 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a hoax, meets WP:BIO, what's the problem? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If had you read through all the comments and checked the history of the page, when it was nominated, the current page displayed was a hoax. The original page created (assuming there is more than one Ryan O'Hara) was about a child comedian did not meet WP:BIO. A few revisions in between, the current page was done about the current rugby player who DOES meet WP:BIO. Jauerback 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming I hadn't read the comments or the article history. Again, I ask, given that the current article meets WP:BIO and is not a hoax, is there any reason why it should not be kept? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:30, 21 July 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} 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Toya Jackson - Life at Balleys

This is a non-notable bootleg DVD frequently sold on eBay. It's illegitimacy is evident by the fact that they spelled "Live" wrong, and that it calls itself "Most Famous Hits" when it leaves off Jackson's most popular songs. In addition, the article is very poorly written, the song titles have incorrect naming conventions, and in general, the article is just a mess. Please remove this eye-sore. Rhythmnation2004 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not notable enough, and if this AFD doesn't pass, this article definitely needs a cleanup.Lemonflash ^talk 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a non-notable bootleg. I've cleaned it up, everyone deserves to look good at their funeral. If evidence can be presented that it's actually a super duper mega popular bootleg, then all the better, it'll look fine for its exoneration. It's a win-win situation! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summary to La Toya Jackson article.--JForget 15:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summary to the main article. The concert is fine, ok it's a bootleg, but 'till now it's the only possibility to get an impression of LaToyas live performance!--MorbusGravus 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:28, 24 July 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 by means of unanimous vote and withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammal species in Florida

~~Unsure about this one, thinking it might be WP:LISTCRUFT Rackabello 22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Withdraw and Speedy Close I said I wasn't sure about this one, looks like we have a consensus here that its definitely not listcruft. Sorry for listing and wasting everyone's time, I acted on my initial impressions, and sometimes that isn't a good idea :( Rackabello 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced, comprehensive treatment. Focused and clearly defined criteria for listing limit the potential for listcruft status. Horologium t-c 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, the creator of this list already has three Featured Lists, and another which is likely to be promoted, currently at FL candidates. His list contributions are very strong. (Yes, I have worked with him closely on a couple articles, but not this or any of the featured lists.) Horologium t-c 23:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is listcruft the best you got? I'm no fan of lists myself but this one is both well sourced and with a clearly defined criteria for inclusion. As a good examle of how lists should be done speedy keep. MartinDK 23:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from having 99 sources, I don't think it meets the criteria of WP:LISTCRUFT nor do I think it gets caught up in Indiscriminate Collection of Information. Useight 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep Not at all listcruft. It's well sourced, discriminate, encyclopedic, comprehensive -- everything a Wikipedia list should be. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No, it's definitely not WP:LISTCRUFT. --Crzy cheetah 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As per above. Lemonflash ^talk 23:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Not listcruft. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Impressive work. I'm no expert but I do have to ask if humans count as a mammal species, in which case this would be about wildlife.Canuckle 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point, the best name would be list of wild mammal species in Florida, but I decided to stuck with the naming schema that other list use. I used species because a true list of mammals would have to list all subespecies as well, and this is almost a life's project. Btw - thanks to all for the nice comments.--Legionarius 00:36, 20 July 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 before this turns into a bigger conflict. Nominated over a content squabble that appears not actually warrant deletion, no matter what outcome. AfD isn't cleanup™®©. Redirects are cheap™®©. I'd suggest merging to/from/around/close-by other articles, or replacing inaccurate information with accurate information. "Look at the pastel-shaded box. Look at the silly little pastel-shaded box". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOS

DELETE or MERGE with MS-DOS The article DOS is about a make-believe family of OS's. These OS's were either derivatives or knock-offs of MS-DOS, and while the article is helpful, the entire DOS page is misleading, and actually about MS-DOS. It's like referring to Elvis and Elvis impersonators as the "Elvis family of people". ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C:/>SPEEDY_KEEP. Nom has not given a good reason for deletion. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Run SpeedyKeep.exe. If DOS isn't notable, I don't know what is. However, sources are needed. Useight 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nom has not made a single reference to policy or even a guideline. A merged has been proposed, you don't need to involve the folks at AfD to solve this one. MartinDK 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; cleanup and/or merge per TPH, Useight, and Martin. Iknowyourider (t c) 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I was unclear earlier. The article DOS claims not to be about MS-DOS. It claims that DOS is a common name for a variety of MS-DOS knock-offs. This is not the case. It is based on a make-believe concept. MS-DOS is actually the OS in question. There is no evidence to support the concept of a "family" of MS-DOS related OS's being commonly referred to as "DOS". DOS can either be a broad concept to refer to a lot of OS's back then, or it can be short-hand for MS-DOS, or it can mean another specific "DOS" like Apple DOS, but the very concept the DOS article outlines is false and misleading. There is useful information in the article that can be put in the MS-DOS article, but the "DOS family" does not exist. The basic idea is this: if someone were to say "My computer is running DOS" in the early 90's, the article claims this would mean you were running a "member of the DOS family". This concept did not exist in normal usage. It'd be like saying you had a Super Nintendo when you really had an emulator. The article is based on a fanciful premise. I hope that is clearer. Please read the article before voting. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's still very much NOT a reason for it to be deleted. If the article's misleading, then fix it. I would do it myself, but I don't know the first thing about DOS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is based on a non-truth, and states it as fact. That is misleading to people who know nothing about MS-DOS. Many people refer to MS-DOS as DOS, and this article is using that confusion to pretend that they actually mean something else. When people talk about DOS on an IBM compatible PC, they do not mean DR-DOS or OpenDOS, they mean MS-DOS. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still not buying it. The best you would ever walk away with here is a redirect which is likely to be the result of a merge anyway. There is no way we are deleting a common search term like DOS. This is a content dispute, seek dispute resolution or even better work it out yourselves rather than try to get it deleted in the middle of a merge debate. MartinDK 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        DOS (disambiguation) should be at DOS, and there is no merge dispute, I put that {{mergeto}} up when right before I brought the article here. Would you delete an article on the Queen of England if the whole article described her life in Pangea 250 million B.C.? ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a totally different animal altogether. This DOS article is only a minor mistake comparatively. INACCURACY IS NOT USUALLY A GROUNDS FOR DELETION. IF THE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT, FIX IT YOURSELF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article is based on a concept that doesn't exist in any verifiable manner, what is the point in fixing it? To make it accurate it would have to be about something else. There is already an article on MS-DOS, disk operating system, DOS (disambiguation). Do you have a suggestion? ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then make it about something else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: This conversation is starting to become unproductive. I have a new proposal. First, merge any relevant content that's in DOS and isn't already in MS-DOS into MS-DOS. Second, redirect DOS to DOS (disambiguation). Does that make everyone happy? Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Too many *'s... Sounds fine to me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja
        
        I'd still say a generic x86 "DOS" page is needed, as the DOS (disambiguation) page doesn't list the differences, or similarites, between the various flavours of DOS. Retron 10:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{talk} 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of notable dos versions than MS-DOS Corpx 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a onetime professional PC technician DOS and MS-DOS are certainly not exactly the same thing. Microsoft has always had a lock-in corporate strategy and they tweaked MS-DOS and strong-armed vendors into compatibility with MS-DOS and non-compatibility with non-MS-DOS products. There is certainly a broader "DOS compatible" zone that involved millions of users and billions of dollars of investment. Just because MS-DOS 1.0 was somehow "first" doesn't mean that e.g. PC-DOS, sold by the then-largest vendor of PC-compatible hardware, is an MS-DOS "impersonator" (for one thing, there was proper licensing). The nominator either has an axe to grind, or didn't actually live through the period and is speculating. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the number of other articles about DOS implementations, it should be absolutely trivial to pull out sources enough to demonstrate note separate from MS-DOS. MrZaius^talk 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although they're all related, there are distinct differences between the various x86 DOSs, from memory usage to including programs. I'd suggest the generic "DOS" page should list the differences and similarities between the various flavours of DOS. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, IMO there's a lot of duplicated material.Retron 10:11, 20 July 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. Sr 13 06:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Leonard Hatred

Non-notable band with no releases. No sources. Nothing known about the members of the band. I put a db-bio tag on the article, but an anon removed it, thus preventing me from re-adding the tag, so here we are. Corvus cornix 22:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not include any information that would satisfy WP:BAND. the_undertow ^talk 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND Rackabello 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Fails WP:BAND. Lemonflash ^talk 23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't cite anything to assert notability. I ^{(said) (did)} 01:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Bigdaddy1981 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A Google search reveals NO HITS. Mr pand 09:30, 20 July 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. Sr 13 06:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerere Pastificio Foundation

NN non profit organization from Italy. Reads like a promotion, unreferenced. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" - WP:NOTE Corpx 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unref'd and nn. The creator, FoundationPastificio (talk · contribs), clearly had a conflict of interest. Shalom ^Hello 04:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty blatant advertising. Blueboy 96 12:16, 20 July 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 speedy deletion criterion G1 (Article or other page which provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.) and the snowball clause. Support for deletion was unanimous, if limited in scope. Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic relationship

Serves only to mystify the reader. Its supercat is non-existant. If a source is not found it is OR. Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Somebody may think this is english, but even for somebody who knows a little about the subject it seems to have been intended to discuss it is completely unintelligible. I mean, what does "it as a piece" on the end of the first sentence mean? JulesH 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor writing won't qualify the article for nonsense. However, no RS=OR. the_undertow ^talk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article fails the reverse-Turing Test; if you can't tell the difference between a human, and a random lang-bot, then it's a lang-bot. --Haemo 23:15, 19 July 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 revisions after nomination for deletion clarified notability and wikified content. Reliable secondary sources need to be added (IMDB reference alone is not sufficient). On a procedural note ... the AFD template should not be removed from an article under consideration here until the discussion is closed. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Dedio

does not explain much about him, more about the people he worked with, the shows he was in and the history or facts about those shows. Tiptoety 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a new article about an unfamiliar subject, and should not be kept unless references are added. Shalom ^Hello 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor is notable, even if the article is a rather poor one. I think I'll clean it up and reference it. Atropos 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. Atropos 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without digging into the other work done, being the voice actor behind one of the main characters for both Captain Planet and the Planeteers and The Karate Kid would seem to give him the requisite notability. - Fordan (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and rm the AfD, User:Atropos cleaned it up a bit and i think it meets notability. Tiptoety 13:58, 24 July 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} 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nekos

Non-notable rapper, no sources, only one album apparently released, fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough info other than album releases, not notable. Tiptoety 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" - WP:NOTE Corpx 02:33, 20 July 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 article has expanded a great deal since being tagged for discussion. Content is sufficient to meet WP:CORP and there is a clear consensus to keep. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Audio

Non-notable company, no claims of notability, one sentence. Should have been speedy deleted under A7, but my db tag was deleted, so here it comes. Corvus cornix 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company has multiple reviews of their products in topical mainstream magazines such as Stereophile which means they meet WP:CORP. Nomination is premature. GlassFET 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep more information needed, but might be notable. Just started this AM; acceptable stubDGG (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GlassFET and DGG. Bearian 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has no false infomation on it. No products are advertized. It set up a base for users to add to it. They already have!! Legacyaudio 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GlassFET cad2787 17:21 19 July 2007
Keep for now - editors should carefully respond to the removal of a speedy tag in order to avoid a knee jerk reaction - the version tagged contains a review that establishes notability. Addhoc 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Doesn't read like spam, but definitely needs more neutral information to assert notability Rackabello 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as there's not much there. Bearian 19:28, 20 July 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. Mango juice^talk 14:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay

Memorial. The only seemingly notable factor is that the subject is the mother of a notable person. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Odessa Clay is just as notable as Rahman Ali her other son, whose article has been on here since 2003. She, like Rahman, supported Ali by sitting ringside at all his national and international bouts, stood by him through his conversion to Islam, etc. Also, the New York Times thought she was notable enough to give her an obituary. She has her own exhibit at the Muhammad Ali Center where she is listed as a 'notable African American' who influenced the life of Muhammad Ali. Sounds notable enough to warrant her own article, surely?[6] Jack1956 07:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article has existed for a long time doesn't make it not subject to this same process; Rahman Ali may need to be submitted to Afd as well. The Ali Center is great, but only third parties can confer notability on Ali's mother, and the Ali Center is not a third party. Further, a mere obit doesn't confer notability, as it likely was published in deference to her highly notable son. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times and other newspapers that wrote obituaries on her recognised that being the mother of one of the greatest iconic figures of the 20th century makes her notable also. The long list of secondary sources concerning her on, say, Google, also shows she is notable Jack1956 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Muhammad Ali, per precedent with relatives of notable people. All of this information on her seems to be verifiable [7] so there's no real harm in the article... if there's enough information in print to accurately cover tangentially notable people, there's no real need to delete the article. Wikipedia is not paper after all. --W.marsh 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By merge I mostly mean redirect, and make sure she's mentioned in the Muhammad Ali article. It's reasonable to think some people would search for her name. --W.marsh 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with a redirect and mention in the Muhammad Ali article, and the mention is already there. A separate article would, in effect, be declaring she is notable for something on her own accord, and unlimited space or not, that seems unusual. Just because Ali's mother is mentioned in news reports doesn't make her notable. All kinds of things are mentioned in news reports, but unless they have done something to become notable in an encyclopedic sense, we don't convert that news into encyclopedia format. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, over the years, notable in the encyclopedic sense has gradually become just that: sufficient sources to write a decent article. The biggest exception though is indeed biographies... merger/redirection is generally called for in "relative of someone notable" cases like this. But sometimes they do remain as standalone articles, e.g. Melinda Gates. --W.marsh 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Melinda Gates is a trustee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and therefore notable in her own right. Corvus cornix 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the Ali article - Notability is not inherited Corpx 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Muhammad Ali. No independent claims to notability. A third of the article is dedicated to her family tree, which in itself is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Caknuck 20:17, 25 July 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Detour

Anime Detour is an anime convention held in Minnesota, United States. There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Anime Detour for the Anime Detour article to ever meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In addition, this is a troubled article. The article has been on five Wikiproject Spam Conflict of Interest reports since April 2007.[8] Moreover, the July 16, 2007 discussion at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard failed to help resolve the matter. No amount of construction or rewrite can repair this article because there is no reliable source material from which to build a valid Wikipedia article. Anime Detour should be deleted. Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note that two independent sources are available on the articles talk page. One from Newtype USA and the other from Japan Journal. I can actually confirm the existence of the former source. But latter, the best I can find is this pdf file. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very well known Con. Needs cites, that's all. Bearian 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 21:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by the sources mention by Farix above. JulesH 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to pay attention to it and improve it where possible. JulesH 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria stated by the nom are clearly invalid. Jtrainor 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at the history, it appears some parts that were fine got deleted and rewritten to a list format, and sadly, this limited the information available. At this time, information is being reverified and considered for use. Anime detour 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Anime detour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep, seems to just squeak by on WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Farix and Ten Pound Hammer. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:25, 20 July 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 Dink. Sr 13 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinking

Contested prod. I'm not Australian and haven't heard of this term, and it looks like a made-up word to me – but there may be a dinking league of which I'm unaware. KrakatoaKatie 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. KrakatoaKatie 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not Australian, either, but I did find evidence that they use this term [9]. Is it a candidate for transwiki?--Ispy1981 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's a word, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. the_undertow ^talk 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOR Rackabello 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom Harlowraman 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dinking is certainly a widely used word in Australia and is a notable activity that could well have a wikipedia article on it, but this is not it. I reserve judgment and wait to see what my fellow Australians can add to the article. --Bduke 00:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in it's current form as a dicidef. I suggest though that there is probably an article in the dangers of using a bicycle by more than one person at a time standing on stunt pegs...Ga rr ie 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - aren't all words made up?Ga rr ie 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am Australian and I am have heard the expression. But it could only exist as an article as an dictionary definition, and we know what Wikipedia isn't.Teiresias84 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary has this covered under dink [10] and I have not been able to find sources to base an encyclopedic article on this (admittedly it was a perfunctory search). Capitalistroadster 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teiresias84 and Rackabello. It deserves a Wiktionary entry but is definitely not something one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page dink and add the wiktionary link there. It's a worldwide activity, and a multitude of terms are used around the world (e.g doubling), even in Australia. There's also multiple meanings for the words "dink" and "dinking"(e.g. "dinking around"). Aside from the article title issue, I doubt that the activity is notable enough for its own article.Melburnian 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Melburnian. Certainly "dinking" was the word I generally used for this activity when I was younger, so is not "made up" in that sense, but the article as it stands is not suitable to be kept at this stage. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & merge dictdef; activity not sufficiently encyclopedic for a separat article, but could be merged into Cycling as a stunt type (a section yet to be added to that article). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I deleted an earlier incarnation of this page, and it's popping up again, slightly more coherent this time. Melburnian's suggestion seems ideal to sidestep the problem involved. Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, and one that's already covered satisfactorally at Wiktionary. Lankiveil 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect Per Nihil. Twenty Years 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Although the current entry probably does deserve a wiktionary entry rather than a wikipedia, the presence of a stub would encourage others to expand on its place in Australian culture etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.97 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep and stub.-Wafulz 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunhill International List Company

Contested prod; original reason was "No sources, no assertion of notability, written by PR staff." My own opinion is provisional delete unless article is rewritten with independent sources. Chick Bowen 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seen as a leader in the mailing list business. Referenced in the book "No Place to Hide" as one of the founders of the mailing list revolution. [11]--Ispy1981 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Still needs to be rewritten. Chick Bowen 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

; Note to closing editor:Please check whether the article has been created by someone working in the company.It appears so as all the edits of the user are about this company and the talk.I am not sure whether it is allowed in Wikipedia through I do not think this is an advertisement but check this.The user name is also Dunhilljoe

Keep if okay Harlowraman 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunhilljoe makes clear that he works for the company here. Chick Bowen 00:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, spammy article, but notable company. WP:COI could tip it over but I think it could easily be improved. --Dhartung | Talk 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless a lot of changes are made. In its current form it's a blatant advertising/puff piece. --Orange Mike 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify and keep; sprotect if necessary. This is one of those cases where the subject is notable but the article is clearly unacceptable for our project. Usual procedure in these cases seems to be to reduce the article to a stub and allow it to be restarted organically; however, I would additionally suggest that in this particular case the article also be sprotected if marketing copy continues to be inserted or if WP:COI issues continue to arise. Heather 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While the company may need an article, this is the worst of starts mired in COI. Until (1 == 2) 07:19, 25 July 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.-Wafulz 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria Crosses by School

Cross-indexing of two unrelated topics. List of Victoria Cross recipients is a valid topic, but how is this any more encyclopedic than List of Victoria Crosses by town? Corvus cornix 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i see no relevance to this article at all. I see how a list VCs by campaign is useful, but this serves no purpose as far as i can see. It is effectively trivia.Woodym555 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we already have List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. Corvus cornix 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~We already have [[Category:Victoria Cross lists]], i think the lists there are sufficient.~~ I do appreciate the effort that went into creating this article and your commitment to VC holder articles ~~but i do not see this list as being constructive.~~ I recently got VC through FAC so i understand the sentiment. (n.b. I have alerted WP:ODM about this nomination)

Right. I don't say that there was not a lot of good effort put forth in this article, just that it seems crufty. Corvus cornix 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I have to admit to being persuaded by the arguments of DGG and Dhartung and others. The list is quite extraordinary (which does not in itself merit its inclusion) but it does involve quite a lot of uneccessary duplication. We do already have the list of VCs by campaign which does not discriminate by school. So i am asking for some cleanup, or at least discussion, but i don't think it should be deleted. Woodym555 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodym555, this "does not discriminate by school" suggests a kind of moral judgement against doing so? But the main purpose of Kwib's article must surely be to explore the connection (not a very politically correct one, of course) between valour in the face of the enemy and upbringing. "Discrimination by school" is so much at the heart of the article that you can't have one without the other! Xn4 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning delete, but there is a valid rationale for this as at least as late as the First World War young men who received secondary schooling trained through their schools and were called up as school units alongside regular army units. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that could be included in List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients? Corvus cornix 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep In the UK, a typical officer career was directly from a public school to Sandhurst, and the identification of particular public schools with military service is noteworthy. DGG (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that should be to Sandhurst or Woolwich, DGG! Xn4 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning to keep, as the table in this article is so remarkably interesting (though clearly incomplete), and like DGG I find its focus notable. If the article is deleted, could the table I like please be preserved on the Talk page for Victoria Cross or somewhere else? Xn4 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that, here is a constructive criticism: among the VCs, there must be men of little or no education, that is, men who went to no school or else to an elementary school only, but they are invisible here. If the article survives, I think this would be a strand worth developing (supposing there are sources for it). Xn4 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your point, i would like to add that at the moment the number of VCs awarded is roughly even between Officers and enlisted ranks.[12] Most of the enlisted ranks would not have gone to a notable school, let alone a noted public school. This is especially pertinent when we consider that most VCs were awarded before the Second World War. As i said when i changed my mind, i do think it should be kept but it does need improvement. Woodym555 23:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Changed to Keep My main concern is that this really isn't Victoria Crosses by School but rather Officer's Victoria Crosses by School (Subjectively Selected). Woodym555 identifies my primary concerns (especially the inherent bias against Other Ranks, whether educated or illiterate), but unlike him I have difficulty in seeing too much merit to this list (although I appreciate the effort that has been gone to in creating it). I'd be interested in seeing what ideas for change come up in this discussion before I come down on one side or another, but it is my feeling that this information, a worthy fact to include on a particular school's article, is not suitable subject-matter for a list.

Xdamr^talk 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Xdamr, some of the above, such as the inherent bias against Other Ranks, strikes me as overstated. The only bias which is truly 'inherent' in the incomplete list must be in its incompleteness. The table needs the 'single-VC' schools to be included, and a line for no known school: without them, the whole picture fails to emerge. Xn4 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until that happens this list is not from a NPOV. It favours men from the British Public schools. In the case of enlisted men, we may never find the school they went to. I'm inclined towards delete but weakly. --Bduke 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you've lost me, Bduke, I don't see any favouring, nor any prospect of any so long as the article is soundly referenced and expands to cover the ground open to it. Just a day after it was begun, it can't be expected to be complete. Some schools, no doubt for complicated reasons, produced a lot of VCs, while others (including most public schools) didn't. That is interesting, and I guess we can be dispassionate about it. Xn4 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case I have misunderstood you, Britiah Public Schools are private schools and traditionally have produced most of the officers in the British army. Officers were more likely to receive the VC than enlisted men, so certainly Public Schools will have more VCs than government schools. That was not my point. That point was that information is strongly biased towards the information for officers rather than enlisted men, so it is virtually impossible to produce a balanced, i.e. neutral list. --Bduke 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound excessively nit-picky (even if I am ;) ) but the VC is also awarded to men of the Royal Navy and RAF - the army don't have a monopoly. (Admittedly the public school/state school division applies to all three services). --Xdamr^talk 04:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Officers were more likely to receive the VC than enlisted men..."

No one was likely to receive the VC.

"That point was that information is strongly biased towards the information for officers rather than enlisted men..."

But the list isn't an analysis of VCs from 'public schools' who were officers. The word 'School' in the title includes all schools everywhere, and VCs includes all ranks. Xn4 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above. Am I being that unclear? Of course nobody was likely to receive the VC. Of course I know that the VC was open to all ranks (and the navy, the air corps and air force). There are cases where in one action the officer got the VC and the men, even when acting independently (i.e. not on a direct order), were given a lower medal. The proportion of VCs who were officers is I think higher than the proportion of serving men who were officers, particularly for World War I. However the last point is the key one. The title says "Schools" sure, but every single school on the list is a British Public School or a similar independent school. Look at the sources now added. These sort of schools do not exist for the schools attended by most of the enlisted men who received the VC. Until the list actually contains a reasonable number of recipients from such schools I remain unconvinced that this is not badly biased towards officers and independent schools and stay on "weak delete". It could be moved to user space while people look for sources from people who attended government schools. That would prove me wrong, as would adding such entries now. I have just sampled the List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. All recipients have an article. Of the first 10 on the list, six are officers and four are not. Only two, both officers, have their school mentioned. This may point also to bias against non-British recipients where again sources on the Schools will be harder or impossible to find. --Bduke 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a day after it was begun, it can't be expected to be complete."

Actually, this line has convinced me - this article is one day old, I'd like to see where it goes from here. Keep from me. --Xdamr^talk 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as military service was traditionally a common path for public schoolboys, the two topics are not unrelated at all. Bigdaddy1981 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a worthwhile article of social history. It is noteworthy that these institutions have produced numerous VC holders, in comparison to a great school like Manchester Grammar School that has produced a Nobel Prize winner and famous writers, but seemingly not a single VC. A table of UK schools Nobel Prize winners would be an interesting comparison.
Keep - First, I am the creator of this page and so my vote is obvious. However, I have found this discussion interesting in the extreme. It has been very thought provoking and has raised a number of questions in my mind about the article/list. There seem to be two main objections to the article. The first, that the list cross-references unrelated topics. The second, that the list appears to not be NPOV (if I am using the term correctly). I will address these in turn: First: the list cross references unrelated topics: Having read the debate I can see that this assertion has been robustly challenged already. Many schools and the military were almost inextricably linked and some still are. The schools shown on the list thus far have, almost without exception, a history of having OTC or CCF units that were annually inspected and reported upon to the military authorities. Some of the schools even have their own military colours. These schools were as related to the military as they were to the universities. Coming out of this strand, however, was a thought that perhaps an extremely valid topic for an encyclopaedic article would be the relationship between Public Schools and the Military over time (this is not the proposed title but an embryonic idea) or indeed Schools and the Military over time which might show whether or not the influence of Public Schools has changed and would be extremely valuable in a social context. This leads nicely to the second thread: the list appears to not be NPOV: I can see why this might appear to be the case at first. The schools initially on the list were, after all, nearly without exception Public Schools (in the very British sense of that phrase). However, the list is most definitely not exclusive to these schools and it is hoped that it will be expanded as I see it already has been. If, as the facts are added, they are referenced and verifiable then they remain objective. Perhaps it would be useful to the table to add a total to the numbers and compare this against the total number of VCs awarded which will then show very obviously just how many have yet to be allocated to a school/institution or indeed no known school. The breakdown of the table into chronologically ordered campaigns/periods was an attempt to provide a platform to highlight the waxing and waning of the influence of various schools on the figures. For example, Eton's longevity as a school of size and influence is in some ways mirrored by the fact that it has been consistent from the beginning of the VC in producing recipients (from the Crimean War all the way to the Falklands), whereas some schools whose rise began at the end of the nineteenth century are not represented until the Second Boer War or First World War etc. If awards of the VC were at one time bias towards officers (and I am not suggesting they were) then this is in the nature of the history of the VC rather than in this list. If articles highlight this fact in some inherent way then perhaps they can be construed as providing valuable social commentary rather than a bias view point. I now realise that I have been writing for too long. I will finish by expressing my hope that the article is not deleted, that it is expanded, that it provides a useful reference point, a basis for social commentary and that it will become more valuable because of this robust debate.Kwib 20:24, 22 July 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 per consensus and lack of content. Shell ^babelfish 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jews and their Lies/primary text

This is a gallery of scanned pages from a book. These were uploaded and put on this subpage of On the Jews and their Lies. Several problems with this... we don't keep subpages in main space, articles that aren't really articles don't belong here but on Commons and the purpose of this subpage would be better suited for Wikibooks. Either way it needs to be deleted from main space. Please note that I'm not nominating the main article nor am I making any assertions that the book is not notable or should be ignored. Please keep that in mind, thank you. MartinDK 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree; on the basis of the title alone, much less whats in it (or lack therof) it needs to go, there is already another place for the book itself. Gtadoc 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to de.wikisource, where somebody might actually have some idea what to do with this. JulesH 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do we need to keep this in any wikisource or commons really? The page scans have no place in the main article space, and need to go. If somebody on another wikimedia project needs the pages for an article or another project then it can be transwikied or uploaded again, but barring that, delete. --Wingsandsword 20:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't transwiki. If it were text, I'd say to transwiki, but this is page scans, I doubt if Wikisource wants it. Corvus cornix 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this were in article main space, the article may have met CSD A1, CSD A2, and CSD A3. Being an article subpage, Miscellaneous for Deletion might have been more appropriate. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MfD is not for pages or subpages in main space. The confusion over what speedy criteria to use is what made me bring this to AfD instead. I've had bad luck in the past with speedy and articles of this kind and within this subject. If in doubt, seek consensus which is what I'm doing now. MartinDK 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above and obvious legal issues (libel and slander). Bearian 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how a book written in 1543 could possibly be conceived as libellous or slanderous, both of which offences may only occur (in most jurisdictions) when making statements about a living person. JulesH 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No doubts Taprobanus 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a good reason for speedy delete on this one, but...well, this is an image gallery, if you want to go that route. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pagescans do NOT belong on Wikipedia. Tagged under the G6 Housekeeping CSD criteria Rackabello 23:09, 19 July 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. No assertion of notability; very short article, based on original research, providing no context. utcursch | talk 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next-Generation TV

It doesn't actually tell you anything, just a random colaberate of pictures and junk, doesn't have a structure, no means, no nothing, doesn't seem very notable either. The sunder king 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{db-nonsense}}, so tagged. Incoherent mess. Zap the pics too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note It has been on the wiki for months, how could it survive? The sunder king 20:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nonsense, OR. Corvus cornix 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diesel-powered speedy delete Nonsense, advertising, no content--take your pick. Just get rid of it and get rid of it now. Blueboy 96 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. —Travis ^talk 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- Makes no sense whatsoever; if it is supposed to make sense, the article is beyond redemption. -- azumanga 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7. No claim of notability.. Shell ^babelfish 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Hubbers

Autobiographical and self-serving account of a non-elected politician. Nothing out of the ordinary. Emeraude 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. I can't find any non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. MartinDK 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little media coverage that I could see, minimal Google results, and no reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:BIO from my view. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:HOLE. Bearian 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not have any WP:RS. Also appears to fail WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per User:MartinDK. NHRHS2010^Talk 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted - author's request, by Dina (talk · contribs) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeeDee Crowder

Disputed prod. Fails WP:BIO. A model and actress with no third party sources or reliable sources for any of her accomplishments. A future film with dead linked website and some myspace-like promotional references Dina 19:36, 19 July 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} 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of electronic music artists and DJs

Superfluous to the corresponding Wikipedia Category: Electronic musicians, this list has been tagged as unreferenced and WP:OR for some time. Also violates WP:ISNOT. Eliz81 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which part of WP:NOT does it violate? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#INFO. Eliz81 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. When citing WP:NOT, please make sure to specify which portion of WP:NOT is violated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is WP:OR and unreferenced, and redundant to the category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use categories, people! Lists are inferior in most respects; this is one of them. --Haemo 23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. This is a very long list which can be easily trnasformed into a new category.--JForget 15:28, 22 July 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.

Bring the page back - Why would you delete this page? This page was good. What the heck is wrong with you people? Bring the page back please.

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Christian School

Article reads like a promotional for a non-notable elementary school. Nothing to merge to, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as a HS. Bearian 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools aren't inherently notable. This one has been named as one of Texas' best private and parochial schools. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to countrywide notability.--Ispy1981 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think notability should be required for a school religious school of this size Corpx 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verification of notability in reliable, independent sources and no information within the article (even uncited) to suggest notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any school, public or private, with 1,100 students serves a large community. I would add that the population makes it unusually large for a "Christian school", or for most other private schools, which makes it notable within those two groups. I don't get the comment about "a religious school of this size" since it's pretty big for a religious school. I agree that the author should, and probably can (easily), find sources to back up the statements. Mandsford 02:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school also have issues with WP:V Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:08, 22 July 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} 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Highschool of the Dead

WP:NOT#PLOT vio, per the 300 other "Plot of X" deletions --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bearian 18:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be merged into main article.ShoesssS ^Talk 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highschool of the Dead. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge plots do not live outside of the main article. Straight forward. A couple more merge supports will indicate early closure IMHO. Pedro | Chat 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. --Haemo 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - Not the place for plot summaries on their own Corpx 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, but would you accept a merge to the main article ? Pedro | Chat 07:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I personally think the synopsis part is sufficient. Corpx 14:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it needs shortening without a doubt. Thanks for clarifying. Pedro | Chat 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent article as plot summaries in separate articles are not really encouraged due to policy.--JForget 15:31, 22 July 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 by User:SirFozzie, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network BLOX

I found this article while searching through User:Iabci's contribs and I believe it is a possible WP:HOAX. It links to Baby sawyer, which was deleted per this AFD. Its website looks suspicious (the ads don't look like real ads, the website links to the offical Cartoon Network website in the US). Some of the page appears to have been copied and pasted from Cartoon Network. While I was searching in Google, I found this. It appears to be a fansite titled CN Blox with the same exact logo. This is its description:Coming Soon to Toon Zone, the new ultimate Cartoon Network fansite, CN Blox. With a new focus on the programming blocks of everyone's favorite network. "Cartoon Fridays: The Fansite," "Adult Swim InfoCentral," and "The X Bridge" will combine efforts to create one of the web's most original and inspired fan sites for a network, ever. Pants^(T) 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, clearly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Obvious hoax--probably a G3 speedy (obvious hoaxes count as vandalism). I'm also reporting this guy to ANI ... he's got a history of creating hoaxes and adding crap to articles. I'm putting up an IAR speedy nomination on the logo too. Blueboy 96 21:11, 19 July 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. Sr 13 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure

Interesting anecdote, but a "grassroots group" formed today does not seem notable yet, however noble its goals may be. High on a tree 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Eliz81 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:Crystal. Bills require executive action to become statutory law, per U.S. Const. Art. II. Bearian 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above plus the obvoius fact that this is spam. If they ever become notable someone else will write about them. MartinDK 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Currently not notable, and WP:CRYSTAL per Bearian above. The single reference isn't good enough either. *Cremepuff 222* 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- organization has accomplished nothing aside from building a web page naming itself (cited). "Please give us a few weeks to get this up and running," that page says. Delete until it does so. Mc sputnik 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Save this somehow I don't know the mechanism to consider this but there is more here than a new Grass Roots group. The group is likely not notable by itself but the story of how money was appropriated for an apparently imaginary organization and how this is a poster child for problems with the appropriations process is very newsworthy. A google search for "Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure" now returns 16,000 hits -up by several thousands in a few days not because of the new Grass Roots group but because of how it ties in with the budget mess and the magnitude of the congresspersons directly involved. So hopefully Wikipedians wiser than I can find a way to save this story - the story is very notable even if the grass roots group is not. [[user:Paulfromatlanta:Paulfromatlanta] 9:25 22, July 2007.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some cleanup has been made by Shalom, but further help is necessary. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Bulletin PLC

There are no sources cited for this article, and the main contributor is Special/User:Metalbul, which suggests a WP:COI issue. It may be a non-notable company. There are only about 75 unique links to the main page found by Google [13]. On the other hand, the article claims the company has been around since 1913. So I'm of the opinion that this is a non-notable company, but it's a bit borderline. eaolson 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources talking about this company, e.g. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] JulesH 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up The conflict of interest is there, but so is the notability. A little bushwhacking will do a lot to enhance the article's neutrality. Shalom ^Hello 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JulesH - Fordan (talk) 13:03, 24 July 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 copyright vio. by user:W.marsh. Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigo jancsi

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

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

The result was Merge to Edgar, Nebraska, after rewrite. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedan, nebraska

A "one-home community" is probably an oxymoron. Be that as it may, there is no evidence that this community officially exists, nor that it meets any notability bar, no matter how lowly set. (Might I suggest a new rule? "One-horse towns, maybe; one-house ones, never.") semper fictilis 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/rewrite~~. My current understanding of established consensus is that populated places, regardless of size, are considered "inherently notable". A search of the USGS nameserver does find a Sedan in Nebraska, however it is in Nuckolls County and not Clay as this article states. I can find no proof that this community (as described in the article) exists at all. If someone wants to do a complete rewrite to describe the real place I'd not mind. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite complete. Dhaluza 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rewrite above. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've considered this problem often when considering starting articles on villages in Ethiopia: should an article be written on a community that is otherwise unknown & may vanish at any time? Where should the line be drawn? Size doesn't work because then arguably notable vanished villages in England & ghost towns in the US will be deleted. I've felt something along the lines of verifiability would work best: if you can't find a reliable source -- best examples being an official publication or an eye-witness -- who can confirm the place exists, then it should be deleted -- regardless of size. If someone can't provide proof it exists -- & with the degree of documentation that exists in the US, any existing proof should be possible to find -- then this article is gone. Can anyone provide that proof? -- llywrch 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, undecided opinion: The place exists; see this map at topozone.com, and it's listed as both a populated place and a town/locale. The topographic map shows about seven buildings total. That said, I'm not convinced that all unincorporated locales are inherently notable. As an aside, TopoZone (which I assume takes its information from the Geographic Names Information System) also lists the community of Rowland, Minnesota, which has been a part of Eden Prairie, Minnesota for many years. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that List of unincorporated communities in Nebraska establishes some sort of notability standard for unincorporated communities: census-designated places, post offices, highway maps, or FIPS place codes qualify a place to be on that list. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is topozone.com a reliable source? Please tell us a little about it. I don't want to discover that it is another fallingrain.com -- which I thought was perfectly reliable until a determined probe proved me wrong. -- llywrch 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It uses data from the United States Geological Survey, including topographic maps and place names. I haven't actually done a detailed probe of their site to make sure that they haven't Photoshopped their data (by drawing fake towns or something), but it still checks out in my book. I'm still undecided about the article, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is clearly an edge case, & whether this article is kept or deleted it should not be used as a precedent unless someone comes up with a better argument than what has been made so far -- including my contributions. -- llywrch 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no content, not verified by sources and even possibly a hoax. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make a redirect to Edgar, Nebraska. The first GHit for Sedan, NE gives a page on Edgar, NE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; a hamlet of one house is NN. Redirect per TenPoundHammer. Bearian 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the likelihood that it had more population earlier, and so we do not have to decide if one house makes a hamlet. If a ghost town were once notable enough for WP standards on villages, then it remains N. DGG (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TPH. This article is original research, and I can't find anything to verify the claims found (not that I am the King of Refs, but i tried). the_undertow ^talk 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TPH and tow, or Delete. The article history shows that the author (SirJello37) is no longer with Wikipedia. As with Pinedale Shores, Alabama there's a danger in writing an article about a place that one has never been near, and that is an "interesting" name on a roadmap. If the place was called Stanton instead of "Sedan", would there be an article? Were there an indication that this was a community that is now abandoned (as suggested by DGG also), that would be notable, but this appears to be little more than a rail spur along the Union Pacific Railroad, and a place where grain is delivered to be shipped. I disagree with the idea that populated places, regardless of size, are inherently notable. Every county has dozens of locations that merit a name on the map, but in many cases, it's to label an area between two post offices. Technically, one's home is a "populated place". I don't doubt that there are homes on the road that runs near Sedan, but I think that these people would simply say that they live "near Edgar". Mandsford 13:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a simple Google search on "Sedan, Nebraska grain elevator" turned up two independent sources that verified it's existence. A USPS zip code lookup revealed the confusion over the county--the zip code center is over the county line. Dhaluza 17:06, 22 July 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. Sr 13 06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moakler

Disputed prod. Article is about an unsigned local performer from Pittsburgh who has (self) released one EP. The article has sources but they are a myspace page (disingenuously described as an "Internet Article" in the refs), some youtube links, and something called absolutepunk.net where it seems I could create a profile for myself right now. Fails WP:MUSIC and the whole thing seems very WP:COI Editor removed prod, as well as tag requesting sources Dina 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just blocked the originating editor of this article for 24 hours for vandalizing my & another editors userpage and replacing the article with profanity. See [19] Dina 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: The Weight of Words EP per Eliz81's suggestion below. ~Matticus ^T_C 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged The Weight of Words EP to add to this discussion. Incidentally, the author blanked the article so it could qualify for speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. ~Matticus ^T_C 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this article will be deleted, I'd just like to thank Dina for wasting my time and effort. I hope you're happy. - V12p (talk · contribs · logs) 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI I'd just like to thank V12p for wasting everyone elses time. --69.95.216.91 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN. COI is not a reason, by itself, to delete. Bearian 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent evidence of notability presented. WP:COI is incidental, per Bearian. V12p, if you save a copy of the text, maybe you could put it up on one of the wiki bio sites that let you post whatever. --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC semper fictilis 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. You will probably also want to consider his EP The Weight of Words EP for deletion as well. Eliz81 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way off WP:MUSIC with no label or full-length releases or reliable sources. Zap the EP too. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:MUSIC, WP BIO, and NN —Travis ^talk 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Well wide of the notability mark. Also borders on a G12 speedy--virtually the entire article is cut-and-pasted from his Myspace page. Blueboy 96 22:49, 19 July 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. No reliable sources, and apparently no hope of expansion.-Wafulz 15:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baker (writer)

Screenwriter with only 2 major movie credits, fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per WP:MOVIE. (And I'd call them cult movies myself." --ROGER ^TALK 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both above. He worked on a couple of movies for a friend (I also agree that they are cult classics), and that's it.--Ispy1981 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I certainly don't agree with the dismissive attitude toward the films Baker is associated with -- especially Witchfinder General which several notable critics believe is a masterpiece -- as the writer of the article in question I can't strongly argue against deletion. The two Michael Reeves films are his only indicated credits on IMDB, and the biographical details provided on that website are nonexistent. However, the fact that Witchfinder is considered to be a major horror film with an inarguable influence on the genre, I would think that the film's screenwriter should have at least a stub entry. But if the vote is to delete, I will accept/understand the decision.-Hal Raglan 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely therefore the place for him is a credit/mention in the film article itself? That is the (only) source of such notability as he has. I don't see much point in tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion. --ROGER ^TALK 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is of course mentioned in the Witchfinder article. During a peer review, another editor suggested that Baker's name should be wikilinked and an article devoted to him. I did so, but in my research I could find no other info other than the details presently in the article. I honestly don't think this can be expanded beyond what it is. If/when the vote for deletion reaches consensus, I will de-wikilink his name in the Witchfinder article and probably make reference to his other script credit, as well as his friendship with Reeves, in a footnote.-Hal Raglan 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe notability is established with his credits. However, he is mentioned in at least one of the other two articles, and the chances of this article being expanded are slim to none at this point. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an article is short isn't a reason for deletion. These are two important films, not you tube clips, with Witchfinder General a very famous effort. Would a Hollywood writer with 'only' two credits be similarly dismissed? What about an actor with only two major roles? How can predictions be made about what will or won't be added to the article in future anyway? The Remarkable Michael Reeves: His Short and Tragic Life by John B. Murray may well contain information about him and there's another biography of the director by Ben Halligan which might be useful here. Nick mallory 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say, you are misconstruing my comments. It is not necessarily that the article is short, it is that Mr. Baker is already listed in an other piece and that this article adds no additional information. Do we add article upon article upon article for every individual that is part of a film? ShoesssS ^Talk 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. If Tom Baker is notable, as i believe he is for co writing these two films, then why shouldn't he have his own article? Nick mallory 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to my question….what does the article add?Shoessss | Chat 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It adds the fact that Tom Baker appeared in a 1999 documentary called 'Blood Beast' about the films of Michael Reeves. If someone googles Tom Baker in search of information about him and his work they'll find it in one place instead of having to look through several film articles. I don't see the problem here. Wikipedia is not paper. It's an encyclopedia. Nick mallory 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's short and sweet - I see nothing wrong with the article, even if it can't be further expanded since it aides navigation. It could also be argued it meets WP:BIO depending how liberally you interpret the guideline. -Halo 23:21, 20 July 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} 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misled (magic trick)

based on WP:NOT#HOWTO Renrenren 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Propaniac 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article describes a commercial magic trick which uses a device, and explains how the device works. That seems no more of a how-to than explaining how a transistor works. If the seller of the trick has a copyright, the article could be copyright infringement, even if it does not quote verbatim from the product literature. Edison 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I see this no different that having this other AFD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criss_Angel%27s_Levitation which will probably not survive after AFD.
Keep User:Edison's copyright concerns do not apply: copyright does not cover methods, only descriptions of those methods. Trick is a notable trick performed by numerous stage magicians, including on TV by notable performers like David Copperfield. Sourcing the method isn't difficult, as there is a booklet & video with instructions on how to perform it.[20] JulesH 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding concerns of WP:NOT#HOWTO, I don't think this is a real concern here. The purpose of the article is not so much providing instructions on how to perform the trick (which would actually need to be much more in depth than the article is) but instead to explain to people who might have seen it how it was done. The latter is an encyclopedic topic, I feel. JulesH 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes zero assertion and offers no evidence whatsoever that this trick is notable. (It should probably be speedy-deleted for that reason.) Propaniac 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that the article doesn't make such an assertion. I, however, just did. JulesH 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And have added that assertion to the article. JulesH 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the fact that this is a commercial available product means to me that it shouldn't be on here. The value of an item in a magic shop is based on its secret. By giving away the secret here, Mr Wenk's ability to make profit from this trick is hindered. --Renrenren 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOT#CENSORED. This is not a good reason to avoid discussing the subject. JulesH 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is still non-notable, and if it's going to tell how to do the trick by showing a picture of the device and explaining what it does and what it looks like, then it's a how-to, even without a blatant title as such. MSJapan 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of JulesH reasoning. and " performed by a number of well-known stage magicians". Sources for this are of course needed.
Delete - No notability established for this magic trick Corpx 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. Needs cleanup, though. AndyJones 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, I fail to see the notability of the product. I don't really think that the fact that David Copperfield did it makes it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Granted that it is not notable, I fail to see how the details of how the illusion is performed can be considered encyclopedic content. As far as it being a how-to goes, it seems to be a summary of how to use the product, and although the reader would probably need to actually own the product to do the illusion, I don't see how it's of any value to anyone else when not used as a hoe-to (making it doubly useless). Calgary 03:26, 23 July 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. Sr 13 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stressed Out (DH episode)

This, and other examples here are no-notable episodes of Degrassi High. pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you check some of the other episodes the editor made, i suggested it be merged with another page. On that page there is info on each individual episode, so why make individual articles? Jackrm 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Episode summaries are already compiled at Degrassi High (Season One), and the summaries on that page seem to be a tiny bit better-written than the ones on these individual articles, so I don't see a reason to merge. Propaniac 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think u should merge them with the list of episodes.--PeaceLova13 04:06, 21 July 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. Sr 13 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of canal water into drinking water

This "article" is poorly written and not encyclopaedic. It seems to promote one person's vague opinion, without any real content, sense of direction, or purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevclarke (talk • contribs)

Delete short badly-written essay. —David Eppstein 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, poorly-written essay, at best it's just OR. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an essay host. Hut 8.5 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Badly written, unreferenced and unencyclopaedic. --Beloved freak 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, Poorly written, unreferenced personal essay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of original research. Wikipedia is not a place to put up your essays on whatever you happen to want to write on. --Wingsandsword 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry to say…why wasn’t this tagged for “Speedy” as nonsense. Shoessss | Chat 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, and I really didn't want to be too hasty. I will look into "speedy deletion" candidates in more detail. ;-) I think this should go as soon as possible, and I did want to mark it some way at least that would get people more powerful than me to pay attention. Leevclarke 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's an essay. I'll check around for a speedy rationale. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, came across this while copy-editing. Doesn't seem to provide much useful information that isn't available elsewhere. Have corrected some spelling/grammar in the meantime.Kateshortforbob 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concluding sentence... "Units which automatically draw in and purify canal water would provide a healthier drinking supply for millions of people."... suggests that this was a an assignment for someone in high school or even junior high or elementary school. No doubt, it got an "A", but it's not a Wikipedia article. Purification of water is an important topic and probably covered elsewhere. Mandsford 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked. It is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 22 July 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. This is not actually an article- it's basically "List of times a helicopter has appeared in cinema, video games, and television", organized by helicopter type rather than the usual fare of a random bulleted list. The only non-list text is "The Helicopter has unique characteristics which have led to it being featured in films, video games, and other media", and this has no citation. If someone wants to create an actual verifiable article explaining the use of helicopters in popular culture, the effect, the desired intent, etc, then they are free to do so. However, a list of appearances in media is not appropriate.-Wafulz 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in popular culture

Pure trivia, and a violation of WP:FIVE - This has become to place to document the use of helicopters in movies & tv shows & video games Corpx 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly trivia. It is clearly stated in the manual of style not to create lists of loosely related information. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I am impressed with the sheer comprehensiveness of the list, one might as well write an article about Cheeses in popular culture. Iknowyourider (t c) 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:*Was Cheese ever featured in an Academy-award nominated movie? A helicopter wasCanuckle 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I propose Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. See also Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and Stinking Bishop cheese. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ILOVEIT. Why didn't I see it. First their trip to the moon was cheese, then the full moon leads to the whole lycanthropy thing. Of course, there's the poem] and Mayor McCheese and the TV series and the movie they made two floors down from me. And it's all sourceable like with this newspaper article Films with cheese. :) Canuckle 01:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was started by some heavy contributers to the avaition project. The material was moved here because it doesn't belong in the regular articles. And, yes, as it says at the top of the article, it is a place to document the use of helicopters in movies & tv shows, a significant part of some heli businesses and of movie budgets. Meggar 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct response to horrible cruft that doesn't belong in articles is to delete it, not create an article for it. --Haemo 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see how this would be important to people in the industry. But are there sources that verify and analyze it? Canuckle 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is not about Helicopters in popular culture; it is not even an article. It is a grab-bag of trivia about any mention or appearance of a helicopter in TV, film, music or what-have you. --Haemo 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an encyclopedic list, sorted by helicopter type. Dhaluza 15:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shame to see such a body of work disappear. Topic is too broad and the list is too crufty. You could narrow it down -- provided there are sources to demonstrate notability and comparisons -- to Shows about helicopters for Blue Thunder (nominated for Academy Award for best editing), Airwolf or The Helicopter Spies [21]. And there might be an article in Helicopter use in filming (to hold the camera and as prop) or Helicopter accidents in filming. But those are a long way away from the current content which is a very comprehensive list of helicopters seen in movies. Canuckle 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the page could serve a useful purpose, but only as an article about appearances where helicopters play a significant role in a culturally notable piece of work, and how their unique characteristics make them particularly suitable in roles that could not be filled by other vehicles. "Airwolf" and "Blue Thunder" are excellent examples. In its current state it's nothing more than a refuse bin for every appearance that keeps getting deleted from an individual helicopter's entry. -ReverendTed 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- Possibly THE WORST In popular culture list on Wikipedia. Copter fan watches movie, copter fan spots a helicopter, copter fan adds it to Wikipedia. This is classic WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics, it's just a list of unconnected films that happen to have (miscellaneous) helicopters in them. Saikokira 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is not the "trivia list" but excellens source of knowledge for all those who want to check where helicopter were portrayed / shown. Of course most of info from that article can be posted back to main articles but this will not help those who are trying to get all those info in one place. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still sounds like argument to avoid It's Useful.Canuckle 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I concur with Piotr. If ths article is deleted, then we must delete all pop culture and trivia related articles, sections within articles (many aircraft and naval ships and cars and vehicle and recorded music articles have extensive pop culture and trivia sections), and all the related categories of pop culture. This would be a major undertaking... nomatter what the topic or physical item in our society, there is a relationship to popular culture or "real Americana"! LanceBarber 04:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing. Masaruemoto 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics; WP:NOT#IINFO; WP:FIVE Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Very poor, just a laundry list of personal observations. An example of how not to put together an "In Popular Culture" article. Masaruemoto 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common other than there's a helicopter in 'em. Otto4711 12:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break

Strong Keep As with the prior commentator, I had expected to find little more than a list of movies that had a helicopter scene. Sadly, most IPC articles really are a list of "shows with a _____ in 'em". Having looked at the article, however, I see that it is written by someone who has a familiarity with the manufacturers of this variety of aircraft. Most of us have heard of a Cobra or an Apache, but wouldn't know what it looked like. This type of list is far better than trying to places images and videos on Wikipedia. Every "in popular culture" article has to be evaluated on its merits, rather than on how we feel about lists. This is a keeper. Mandsford 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The helicopter as an icon is a given to show up in TV and movies, and it is the intent of this article to document which models show up where. The use of helicopters in productions is a major segment of the helicopter industry, and this list could easily be expanded to document more of that; however, the fact that it has not yet been expanded isn't a reason for deletion.AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the result of a reasonable editorial decision to group references to helicopters in a compendium article, rather than scattering them through the individual helicopter make/model articles. This is decision that has a broad consensus among those involved in editing the articles, and should not be overturned by a rough consensus at an AfD. Dhaluza 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a trivia collection per WP:FIVE. That's the bigger consensus Corpx 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not a trivia collection, it's an encyclopedic list organized by aircraft type. If it contains trivia, then that should be deleted, not the entire article. I don't buy the argument that all lists related to pop culture are trivia and should be expunged. Dhaluza 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is full of trivia and listcruft. Now for the appearences on films, maybe it can be mention in each of the helicopters article, but that's a suggestion I am proposing only.--JForget 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of these appearances are significant enough to warrant inclusion in a given aircraft's article. Most of them are just places where a helicopter shows up briefly, as opposed to playing a critical role in the plot. -ReverendTed 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the entries were originally in the individual helicopter articles, and were painstakingly merged here because they would be more encyclopedic and easier to maintain together, rather than sprinkled around. The objections to mixing fictional references with factual articles also has merit, and the merge is a reasonable editorial decision in light of this. If this article is deleted, they will just start reappearing in the individual articles again, which is not a desirable outcome. Dhaluza 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The work may have been "painstaking" but they forgot to include sources, a claim to notability or a link/description within the individual helicopter's article (in the handful I checked). Canuckle 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be cut back drastically, but no need to throw out the baby with the cruftwater. - BillCJ 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keeps popular culture information in one place rather than each article where. MilborneOne 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a trivia collection per WP:FIVE Corpx 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is it simply a collection of trivia? It seems that even in the arguments to delete there is an admission that within all the "cruft" there is the makings of a genuine article. That seems reason enough to keep it with an appropriate tag for Expert help. If it is unreferenced, there is a tag for that. I don't have the vision for that, but I'm willing to allow the opportunity for those who do. --Born2flie 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for reasons stated above especially their actual use in film/production and not fitting on other articles.^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean it should be split into a new article. Corpx 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't even an IPC article, it's just a list of unrelated films/videogames/etc that contain scenes with helicopters, ANY helicopters. Mostly unverifiable as well, just relying on the "knowledge" or honesty of any passing editor who chooses to add to the list. Crazysuit 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per other arguments using WP:FIVE. And perhaps provide a link on Helicopter to the site which is obviously being used as a reference source on the article in question. --Russavia 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with strong reservations. The article's current content is a loosely-associated list of trivia and should be moved to Talk page as users develop the article's content using sources to demonstrate notable depictions and non-OR review of depictions in culture. There are a lot of helicopter sources out there and it's not all about supercharged turbo engines and exhaust manifold additions. Helicopters are iconic to the degree that they have their own conspiracy theory: Black helicopters, which should be included in this topic. And I think sources are out there to develop the article. However, the current content is a long way from being where it needs to be. There seems to be little interest by copter editors to improve a stand-alone article to the required level. The motivation seems to be protecting the individual articles from trivia. I added 5 sourced sentences to the Bell 47 article setting the context for the Bell 47's "definitive" TV series Whirlybirds (25 million weekly viewers) and the MASH (film) and M*A*S*H (TV series). The goal was a minimal, sourced assertion of notability on the copter article to refer readers to this article. The changes were reverted as 'unnecessary, over detailed info found elsewhere'. That "elsewhere" seems to be this to-be-deleted article as neither MASH article even says the words Bell 47. The copter article will show a photo of the Bell in "MASH" colours but apparently non-nuts-and-bolts content is non-notable for individual articles. Content requiring clean-up and poor participation by editors are arguments to avoid in deletion but I do question whether the article will improve. Canuckle 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW / nomination withdrawn. Sala Skan 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

This is going to be a controversial deletion. The reason why I want this to go is that it is unnecessarily stigmatising. What if one created a list of heterosexual people? I am 100% sure that it would get deleted as "nonsense". The article is informative, but this can be included in an article like "homosexuality debate". The list in the article is stupid, because it "brands" those people. Again, a list of straight people would get deleted. Why is this list still out there? Sala Skan 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You find there is something stigmatising about being gay, do you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I just think that this list encourages stigmatising as there is no list of heterosexual people, and being gay is not really something "extraordinary" or "important". Sala Skan 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I find the reasoning behind this AfD, that this list "brands people gay" quite strange and utterly irrelevant to the list's purpose. WP:LIST contains three reasons for a list on Wikipedia:

Informative - One merely needs to put "list of gay people" into Google to know that there is phenomenal interest in such a list, regardless of sexuality. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to provide information that people want. I started working on this list last November, and WP:LGBT have succeeded in filling the list with almost 2000 people, all of whom are cited with reliable sources. We are still only half done. Because of our policy of citing everyone individually, this list is one of the most comprehensive, and accurate, lists of gay people in the world, not to mention one of the most cited lists on all of Wikipedia. It is without a doubt, THE most informtive list of gay people, period.
Navigation - in this sense, this list performs the same function as List of epileptics and List of HIV positive people: it allows anyone with an idle moment to skim through and discover interesting things about people they didn't know before. It is no more stigmatising to want to know who's gay than to want to know who's Jewish. Additionally, it may be of particular interest to isolated gay people to know that they are not alone, and they are not condemned to be failures in life because of their sexuality.
Development - WP:LGBT has some new and interesting article ideas and other projects that cannot be fulfilled without a completed list. To delete this list would be to put back our project by at least twelve months, especially as we have spent so long working on it. The list further gives us a visual overview of everyone who falls into our scope.

If someone created a list for heterosexuals, they are welcome to, but I suspect it would be deleted, NOT because "it is nonsense", but because it is largely indiscriminate. Most people are heterosexual. The interest generated in a list of gay people, like a list of left handed people or list of converts to Judaism, is precisely because it does not include the majority of the population. A full list of gay people on Wikipedia would number some 20,000 individuals if we could cite them all (which we can't, people are still in the closet) - a list of heterosexuals would number some 400,000: what would be the point? To claim that this list needs to be deleted because it somehow reflects badly on the people who are "branded" gay is just ridiculous, it is no more shameful to be gay than it is to be bald. Even the nominator admits this list is informative and useful, so I am at a loss as to why it should be deleted other than at the behest of someone who seems to think being gay is a bad thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why is a list of heterosexual people "indiscriminate"? There are millions of gay people on earth, so then this list is "indiscriminate" as well. Sala Skan 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — It is possible that this list will become unwieldily (there are a lot of famous people and a significant fraction of them will be GLBT). A list on famous heterosexuals would definitely be unwieldily. But my instinct is, while the list remains so well presented, let it stay and perhaps revisit the issue at a later date. Certainly there's no question many people, for whatever reason, take an interest in other people's sexuality. So the list, while possibly not ideal for Wikipedia, is probably going to draw more of a crowd than some of the other lists on Wikipedia. Cedars 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, per Dev920.Callelinea 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep per the above, although I have to question the utility of such a sprawling list vs. categorization. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dev920 makes a good case. Hut 8.5 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dev920. Article is interesting, informative and well sourced. There are numerous similar lists on the internet, which shows how in demand it is, and this is by far the best I have seen. The idea that it is stigmatising is ridiculous considering that the vast majority of people on the list are either dead or have chosen to be open about their sexuality. It is not really comparable to a corresponding list of heterosexual people. You wouldn't, for example have a list of people who aren't Jewish to go with a list of Jewish people. --Beloved freak 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dev920. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:POINT anyone? Create the List of heterosexual people. Source it. It would be valid in my opinion. And *this* list is not only encyclopedic, it's extremely well sourced, thought out, and constantly being worked on. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A little bit tired of this "If it's sourced, it's good" argument that floats around in AfDs. I think List of LGBT people should be severely pruned to include people who's LGBTness is of huge significance to their lives (and no, you can't say that about everyone), not deleted. But to say that having a list of heterosexual people is "OK" if it's sourced is going WAY WAY overboard. Bulldog123 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're LGBT or you're not, I don't know how you quantify "huge significance". I'm not a gay activist but as I sleep with other men I'd like to like I'd make the list were I notable enough to have an article about me. And you sort of prove our point by inferring that there are so many heterosexuals, homosexuals are a minority in comparison. TAnthony 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dev920. Cap'n Walker 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an amazing article and I'm glad you nominated it or I otherwise might not have seen it. This is great information and that its vetted and avoids rumored inclusion is incredibly helpful. Benjiboi 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Only weak because I doubt anyone will actually listen and make the list more legitimate by pruning it. Bulldog123 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Dev920 et al. Bearian 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ...here we go again. --emerson7 | Talk 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As this list only includes sourced information, there is nothing inflammatory or "stigmatizing" (yikes) about it. These articles represent a large part of the larger movement to build the record of LGBT history. TAnthony 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator's complaint is that the title of the list gives the list the appearance of being indiscriminate. Unfortunately, some readers expect that the membership criteria for a list be entirely set out in the name of the list. You see it all the time at AfD. While setting out the entire membership criteria for a list in the name of the list seems unlikely, perhaps the title should be changed to something like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual notable people so that we can at least end AfD nominations such as this one for the article before they are posted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to agree with that. The criteria of inclusion in this list need to be very clear, and they currently aren't. The title is also confusing because it suggests that every gay person can be included in the list. Sala Skan 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think notability goes without saying, this is Wikipedia. By the above argument we would have to add the word "notable" to the title of every list. TAnthony 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - TAnthony is right. Furthermore, one would have to be quite dense to both miss the point of an encyclopedia and the first sentence of the list, "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual", and still believe that we are trying to compile a list of every gay person in the entire world. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that the criteria of inclusion in this list is exceptionally clear. Despite that, there will always be a few people who just don't get it and rather than curse their darkness, we should light a candle for them and move on. Also, we don't have to add the word "notable" to the title of every list, we should add it to this list to end the matter for this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that's not a reason for deletion listed in either this or any of the previous AfDs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hopefully, the closing adming will expressly note that in the close. I don't see this as a bad faith AfD nomination. I don't agree with the nomination or its reasoning, but I think we should assume good faith on this and make the most of it. But if you see problems in it, it may help to post your comments at Salaskan Editor review. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I, too, think that this is a good faith nomination. However, the arguments above are all convincing -- the list is well sourced, and although it could be a bit clearer, it's still way above the other "list of ____ people" lists I've seen... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – I don't think this is a bad faith nomination, but I do think the nominator's analogy is a red herring. Minority status is notable; majority status generally is not. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:19, 19 July 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} 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Brain Tumor Day

Relevance is not shown. It does not seem to be a wide accepted commemoration day, especially not world-wide. Jón ^{talk / contribs} 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A quick google search shows up only one link for this event and it is not possible to verify the contents of this article. However, it must be noted that the article has two references. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have no doubt that this day exists. However, there's not enough information available to verify its importance.--Ispy1981 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. It's in its 7th year, and only has 2 cites? Bearian 19:03, 19 July 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. Consensus agrees that article needs fixing and not deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South African lakes

This has been around for over a year now. The total list consists of just 4 lakes, none Wiki articles. South Africa must be extremely dry if this is it, though I suspect there are so many thousands and thousands of lakes in the country that this could only be a sample if anyone could be bothered to work on it. Emeraude 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So Fix It? Needs to be sorted out, but would form a useful navigational tool when completed. Just because it's barely got any entries is not a reason to bring to AFD. Pedro | Chat 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we were to delete every article which wasn't perfect there wouldn't be many left. Nick mallory 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve I have just added the {{expert}} tag. Article just needs some improvement. Jackrm 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Some"? Emeraude 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - Lots. It's still not a reason to delete it. Pedro | Chat 15:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Lots then. Surely there's somebody on wikipedia who knows alot about this. Jackrm 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, an incomplete list is in need of work and not deletion. Lists of geographic features are certainly valid lists, and assuming the redlinks are for actual lakes it encourages the creation of said articles. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, A relevant list, just needs improvement. The fact that it's full of red-links just reflects systemic bias. --Beloved freak 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag it for expert and wikify. Bearian 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'm adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa. By advertising the article's existence better, someone with the goods to fix it is more likely to stumble across it. (Say, does it ... snow ... anywhere in South Africa?) --Dhartung | Talk 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. The Rambling Man 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potters House Christian Centre Walthamstow

Procedural nomination - was contested prod. User:Darrenss nominated with reason "Article is not required as Potters House page and Wayman O Mitchell page are enough". Appears to fail WP:N and WP:NOT#DIR. Orderinchaos 13:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom, fails WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:NOT#DIR using what I call the McDonalds test (While the company is notable, individual stores and locations would not unless they are subject of significant coverage arising from a significant event occurring there). Additionally, the page is being used for POV pushing by an Anon IP which is known to be used by banned user Potters house (admitted in this diff). Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails to assert any significance as per WP:ORG tagged as WP:CSD#A7 The Rambling Man 14:41, 19 July 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 per G5 - page created by banned user while banned.. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Group

Article created by sockpuppet of banned user. Fails to meet notability guidelines for organizations: multiple independent sources have not established notability. Entire source of article appears to be nine year old newspaper article.--Mantanmoreland 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-banned.--Ispy1981 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per {{db-banned}}. Tagged as such. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:38, 19 July 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.-Wafulz 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football teams in Bristol

Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIR) or a collection of indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#INFO). Plus there is already a category for Sport in Bristol. Number 5 7 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entries to this article are fairly famous in England. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why do we need an article listing them specifically? Most of them are also listed in Bristol#Sport & leisure. Number 5 7 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not ALL clubs are being listed. This list aims to be more specific in listing non-league clubs as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all listed on their league articles (e.g. Gloucestershire County League) so this is just duplication (and in some cases triplication!). Number 5 7 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is not long enough to warrant its own article - "Sport in Bristol" and "Bristol#Sport & leisure" should be perfectly adequate, and we surely don't want the same list in three different places (imagine trying to keep them all up to date). There are so many headings in this article, with such short lists in between, that the article is little more than a small jumble of information that is already (or should be) available in other articles. That's what I think, anyway. :-) Leevclarke 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Culture of Bristol#Sport. I agree that the list isn't really long enough to warrant its own article (even though I created it, in my early days on Wikipedia), but it's not a duplication of an existing category, so I feel that the info should be kept somewhere. Gasheadsteve 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Gasheadsteve as I don't it needs a separate article just for football teams.--JForget 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Gasheadsteve. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gasheadsteve. --Angelo 19:14, 24 July 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} 01:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investopedia

Does not meet notability criteria for web sites. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Sole source for this article is ~~the site itself and~~ content "cut/pasted" from "User:Investopedia"[22] and a press release from the company that just acquired the site. Since this page is essentially advertising, speedy deletion may be appropriate.Mantanmoreland 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, it has been cited as a source for at least five well-known publications, as well as the Motley Fool--Ispy1981 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links please? They could be used in the article. --Android Mouse 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless cites can be added. Bearian 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my nom. This article is an advertisement. I should have nommed for speedy deletion, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Note that I corrected error in my nomination: article was copied from user page of "User:Investopedia." --Mantanmoreland 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated for speedy deletion. I noticed that another article nominated for deletion was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, so I suppose that is OK.--Mantanmoreland 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is permissible to nominate for speedy if an article meets the criteria for speedy. This was speedied as spam, but I do not think it is incontestably advertising-like or non-notable as required for speedy, so I removed the tag. The AfD should continue. DGG (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a Forbes product it is quite possibly notable, if sources can be provided. DGG (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Forbes. Article has been edited extensively since it was created and multiple sources for its notability have not been provided. --Samiharris 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "significant coverage by independent sources". I dont believe that notability is inherited Corpx 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent verifiable sources. Bigdaddy1981 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a Forbes website is a definite claim to notability. I would although like to see some other references provided. --Android Mouse 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references to provide. --Mantanmoreland 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one. I also note that at least one university economics course uses one of its white papers as required reading at UCSB. Looking beyond the first page of hits at Google is better than bald assertions that there are no references. DGG (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced a press release announcing the Forbes Media acquisition with a one-paragraph rewrite of the press release in "econtentmag.com." I don't think that does anything to satisfy the WP:WEB notability requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Ditto for an Investopedia essay being assigned reading in a university course. As I understand WP:WEB, there needs to be far more media coverage than has been located since article was created in May 2006.--Mantanmoreland 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the persons favoring retention of this article agree that its notability relates to its acquisition by Forbes Media, why not merge this article with Forbes? I am changing my "vote" accordingly.--Samiharris 22:26, 22 July 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. Not enough reliable sources presented for verification. With the list removed, this is just a two-line copyright violation.-Wafulz 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis rap

short, poorly written article, which provides a place for lots of new "bands" to advertise themselves Jac16888 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost 2 million Ghits - including [23] which seems to prove its existance and notability :: maelgwn talk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I bet this could be an article if someone really felt like doing a good one, but a big-ass list of redlinked names isn't the way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about the subject not the content of the article. :: maelgwn talk 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in this case the article is SO bad that fixing it would require a 100% rewrite, and until someone steps up to the plate to do so it's better that this be deleted. All it has besides the big list is a self-admittedly unsouracble sentence or two. As the article itself says: "without documented quotes from reliable sources this is a difficult claim to make". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is possible to veriy the contents of this article. Moreover, with 2 million google hits, the notability of this music genre is confirmed. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's 2 million Ghits when not using quotes. With quotes, "Memphis rap", it's about 28,000. Corvus cornix 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone better, as someone suggested "step up to the plate" and fix this article. Notable enough genre to have a film about the Memphis rap scene. Anyone here heard of Hustle & Flow?--Ispy1981 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked through first 2 pages of the google search and couldnt find any "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" (WP:NEO) Corpx 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article claims to be about a distinct musical genre, but doesn't define it (how does it differ from crunk)? It can still be recreated when reliable sources are found. Regards, High on a tree 15:08, 20 July 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. Sr 13 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo Park Penguins

Content-free article about a few penguins at a very small zoo on a small island, which doesn't reach the barest of notability criteria. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no content :: maelgwn talk 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, flamingo park isn't that small, but article about the penguin pool is not notable, and, and large picture makes it slow to load--Jac16888 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Flamingo Park (assuming it's the same Flamingo Park that is). ~Matticus ^T_C 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or we'll soon have Flamingo Park meerkats, Flamingo Park wallabees, Flamingo Park flamingos, Flamingo Park swans, Flamingo Park hawks, Flamingo Park ice cream stall. Emeraude 13:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put the penguins on ice until it's determined whether the pool is in that particular Flamingo Park. Alternatively, delete the little bugger right away and blame his disappearance on global warming. --Targeman 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just reduced the pic size for what it's worth, in case anyone else goes to look at the article. At the lowest level of non-notability. Pedro | Chat 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing worth merging. Propaniac 16:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not need its own article. --Beloved freak 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content and not necessary to be merge (excpet the image maybe) with [[Seaview Wildlife Encounter, if the penguins in question is from Seaview the British Island (although looking at that article it looks like it is).--JForget 15:40, 22 July 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. Sr 13 06:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoBie

Unsourced neologism. Prod removed by author. --Onorem Dil 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - isn't that what a Moblogger is? I can't find this term being used in this context at all, so it's not a suitable candidate for a redirect. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; term doesn't seem to be in actual use. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - No references that establish notability Corpx 02:22, 20 July 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. Sr 13 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamboa

This is an unsourced article about a supposed musical instrument (similar, judging by the description, to the steelpan), but I can find no evidence of its existence despite various searches, not even a single reference (failing WP:V). The only musical references I could find were about a folk band with the same name. If this is a real instrument, it could be something that has been invented recently and simply hasn't found wide acceptance or had anything significant published about it. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dare I say it looks like a hoax. Fails WP:V comprehensively anyhow and at the very best is a neologism. Pedro | Chat 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jackrm 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing corroborating in Google Books. Redirect to Yanbu, for which it's an obsolete spelling. --Dhartung | Talk 17:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly looks like a hoax. If not it still fails WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants access to the deleted material to incorporate it somewhere else, let me know. -- John Reaves 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liero Xtreme

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 11:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence or two into Liero and redirect there. Pretty notable as freeware games go, but best described in the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
Merge, if not Keep: Sure, while this article gives no indication of notability, it is in its own right reasonably well-known. In addition to this, it'd look fairly ugly, the Liero page, if this were to be simply merged; another concern is the external links. Just my current thoughts on this. Qwerty (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 15:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge popularity doesn't necessarily make it notable (look at all the MMORPGs that get deleted), and there's no references or links to indicate notability. Miremare 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With the same logic, you definitely delete or merge the rest of the Liero clones and predecessors: Gusanos, NiL, MoleZ and LOSP. And heck, at the same time you should delete the mother game itself (Liero) because it lacks "reliable" sources like being mentioned in The Guardian. Of all those mentioned clones, Liero Xtreme is in a league of it's own: over 100 000 google hits (compare with the other clones), and an official forum with over 1000 members + several fan forums. It's probably more popular than Liero itself. So now it should be considered: What constitutes notability for a computer game? If being mentioned in online games magazines is enough, then it'll probably be easy to find such material for Liero Xtreme, but I bet NiL, Gusanos and LOSP will get deleted on that basis, since they are nowhere nearly as played. --Snoopydawg 09:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here is for instance an independent Finnish Online Games site that has Liero Xtreme listed as the most downloaded game: [24] (scroll to bottom). Here it is listed on the finnish computer magazine Mikrobitti:s pages: [25]. Here it is listed among the top downloaded games on a Swedish site: [26]. --Snoopydawg 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC
Merge a sentence or two into Liero and redirect per Andrew. --Evb-wiki 16:52, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footloose (2009 film)

Pure speculation. No sources are given to support this movie's existence. Metros 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant at IMDb --ROGER ^TALK 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the source, an article in Variety magazine. It's been widely copied and cited across the net, but I can't find any other original sources. Eliz81 13:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Paramount is "plotting", "will develop it", "will produce", "in negotiations to helm", "in talks to play". It is statement of future intent and may not happen. I'm not sure why this should be considered encyclopedic. --ROGER ^TALK 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not exactly the New York Times, but Access Hollywood interviewed Efron and Bacon about it here (watch out, video autoloads), who verbally confirm the project. This raises a point which I'm sure will be useful for other to-be-made films: what is the criteria for 'passing' WP:CRYSTAL with upcoming films? Does the film have to already be in production? Clearly the page creator isn't idly speculating about the movie. Eliz81 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at this early stage there's no guarantee it'll get made, or who will star in it, direct it etc. It might be helpful to read WP:MOVIE. That sets the notability bar high. --ROGER ^TALK 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if I'm reading this correctly WP:MOVIE#Future films.2C incomplete films.2C and undistributed films, it sounds like if the production is in some way notable, the film can be included. Based on the buzz around the play, the star Efron, and great attention in entertainment-oriented magazines and online sources, I would assume the production meets notability criteria. However, at what stage of moviemaking does it cease to become speculation? (This has been most helpful by the way, I appreciate it!) Eliz81 15:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say once there in confirmation that the movie in in production, signing actors to appear, etc., basically more than just "In negotiations" or "in talks to appear in" then it could be included. Wildthing61476 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd wasit until the advertising has started but that's just me being cautious. :))) --ROGER ^TALK 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until production is confirmed. We have made exceptions but it isn't good policy. --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dhartung. Bearian 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant crystalballery. Closing admin should take a good long look at the editing history of the creator, AshTFrankFurter2 (talk · contribs)--his talk page is crowded with warnings about bad edits and even a copyvio. Blueboy 96 21:37, 19 July 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 tentatively delete. Simply put, notability was not established. Note that I discounted the Nature source since the person citing this subscription-only publication failed to establish what exactly was written there. Feel free to provide the pertinent excerpt on the talkpage for reconsideration (although it seems unlikely; if Nature termed it the best of its class, surely there'd be ample mention elsewhere. El_C 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tranche (software)

I tagged this for speedy deletion for notability, which was contested so I've brought it here. This is niche software apparently in development about which i know nothing and a Google search for "Tranche software" brings up very little. The talk page contains what may be useful background. --ROGER ^TALK 10:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria. --ROGER ^TALK 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Google "Tranche". We're the 6th hit and rising. Tranche is one of the first big efforts for actually sharing large data sets. It did start in a relatively obscure field; however, it has had massive adoption and currently hosts several of the NCI and NIH sponsored data sets. Check out the user docs for examples at http://tranche.proteomecommons.org. Please realize that Tranche has been around for about a year. It is actively developed, but is far from "apparently in development". Go launch the Tranche tool http://tranche.proteomecommons.org. You'll see that it is far more than vaporware. I clearly think that it is fair to keep a wikipedia page on Tranche. It is real, and proper citations exist for it. If you disagree, I'll ask others to post here. I bet I can get several dozen fairly quickly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.27.110 (talk • contribs)
Comment. "If you disagree, I'll ask others to post here. I bet I can get several dozen fairly quickly." This is meatpuppeting, and is a bannable offence. Further, the major issue here is notability. If you want to keep the article without violating policy, the best thing you can do is add references to where this software is discussed or reviewed by third-party reliable sources, which I see there is already one there, maybe. Someguy1221 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking others to post to say "keep", is puppetting. Asking others who may know of references to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia is not. DGG (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proteomics is a relatively new field largely defined by the software advancements made in the field. (See SEQUEST). The development of new software directly affects the advances in the field, and hence the history of the field is by large the history of its software. As the gentlement who responded to the last comment pointed out, there are references at the bottom. I just added a link to slides hosted on nih.gov, and there is an entry from the ASMS site. The software is notable as a bridge between researchers and large Proteomic software projects. As a testimony to the software's significance, beyond the federal funding, many research institutions host servers for the core Tranche network, which you can browse on the Google map of Tranche servers. I hope to see even more Proteomic (or, more broadly, Bioinformatic) tools in Wikipedia. Looking at the external link section of the Proteomics page will show the significance of the software tools to the science. --Bryan (hrunting5)
Comment: Sorry if the posts appeared to be meatpuppeting. Several people are excited about the project, and the "quick delete" on Wikipedia surprised us. Please don't take offense, I'll advise the folks affiliated with Tranche to carefully consider your warning. I think most people understand that there is no voting on Wikipedia. Jayson Andrew Falkner 01:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is not nearly as well sourced as Linux or Emacs, but it is drastically better-sourced than Window Maker or Ratpoison. Iknowyourider (t c) 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think notability has been established. The sources lead back to proteomic and are scarcely independent. Against that, the article is now in better shape and looks more encyclopedic. --ROGER ^TALK 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the brouhaha, notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability is not a particularly high barrier (which is all the more reason for not lowering it) and, if this software is as good as everyone claims, it will soon attract copious comment from reliable independent sources. Deleting the article is of course no bar to recreating it once the specific objections have been addressed. --ROGER ^TALK 09:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the notability criterion based on the comments above and the references supplied. Roger--please note that CSD:A7 only applies to articles about people, groups, companies and web content; it is not a catch-all notability clause. And even for these cases, it can only be used when notability is not even asserted, not just when it appears non-notable. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. In this case, it didn't seem that notability had been asserted when I CSD'd it and also it seemed to me to be web content. (The guideline says that any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered ... as web content.) Also, absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria.--ROGER ^TALK 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This case is certainly not a clear-cut one. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're cherry-picking your argument... WP:WEB talks about web *content* and says nothing about web programs or web software (which is a deficiency in that guideline)... i would argue that in the context and examples in WP:WEB, 'content' refers only to data and information, period, it says nothing about operational software... my personal belief is that glib and libertine interpretations of these so-called 'notable' guidelines by non-experts in the field have led to the mass destruction of many valuable Wiki pages about software which will never be recovered... let me quote the WP:GD here:

first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

using speedy delete is an end-run around this bit of tolerance and wisdom... my 2 cents, for what it's worth - 69.235.255.45 12:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in your paragraph order:

WP:WEB talks about any web content. The any must therefore include download content. Plus, footnote #1 makes it clear that content includes product, it lists types. No cherry-picking there.
See Talk:Tranche (software) I did do the homework and found no independent sources to conform notability. If I'd found one, I'd have included it and removed the tags myself. I have no axe to grind on this either way.

--ROGER ^TALK 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're cherry-picking because you choose to see this important program as web content only and as downloadable content only! it's also an operational software program used by researchers around the world to distribute, share, and backup important research data using the internet much the same way as Wikipedia does! it's not just another bit of web content, it's not just another product, it's not just another computer program... it is kin to Wikipedia itself! - 76.195.146.40 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (i discovers the triple-quote! thanks, Rog =)[reply]

Comment: "Kin to Wikipedia itself" isn't really a valid argument against deletion, in my opinion. There's plenty of software out there that shares some of the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and which aren't necessarily notable enough to feature an article in Wikipedia. (I'd say that anything open-source falls into this category.) It's not a persuasive argument. Best, Iknowyourider (t c) 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about cherry-picking The web-content stuff is irrelevant to this current discussion: it's one of the technical grounds for qualifying for Speedy Deletion. Which this isn't. --ROGER ^TALK 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey wait a second you're the one who keeps bringing up web content non-notability as grounds for deletion... see your comment at the top of page:

Absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria. --[[User:Roger Davies]|Roger] 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like a web content argument to me... that link points off to the guideline for web content notability criteria... again i say, Tranche is more than mere web content, it's an internet program - 76.195.146.40 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to determine a clear consensus. -- John Reaves 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
comment I have always assumed "web content" meant content distributed over the web, and was included in speedy as a criterion because so much of what was distributed only over the web was unquestionably not worth a WP article, and even a non-expert could decide. It doesn't include other computer software, most of which needs a little more careful and expert discussion than a speedy. DGG (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an interesting one, isn't it? I brought it up here for review. Your 2¢/2p there would be appreciated. --ROGER ^TALK 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please see my comment to Roger above about cherry-picking... if what you're talking about is just web content, i.e., just data, just information, then sure, a non-expert could decide... but Tranche is not just web content, it is an operational software system for doing important work on the web, just as Wikipedia is/does... in that case i think you need an expert, or at least you non-experts have proven to me that an expert is required to judge... an analogy: what happens if in the future we decide any "information" that is "common knowledge" among a populace is non-notable and non-encyclopedic because, well, everybody just knows it, learns it in school or from tv... then does that mean we should delete "The Battle of Gettysburg" or "The Challenger Disaster" or "Hurricane Katrina" from the Wikipedia just because it meets the criteria of being "common knowledge"??? but this reflects your attitude... oh, it's web content, it's distributed over the web, therefore it falls in the same category as any old blog crap... this is software, this is a program, this is a running system, it does something... and in this case it does something very important, related to cutting-edge biological research...

and it really gets me when you editors misinterpret guidelines for your own agendas... like the concept of "original research"... i read that to mean any old crap that any old person on the planet makes up... it is not intended to apply to recognized researchers in a field doing cutting-edge research!

this would not be important at all, or as galling to me, except for the fact that speedy deletion is swift and final... and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia when applied willy-nilly to articles about which the deleter knows nothing...

here's an excerpt from the WP:IAR article "Wikipedia:What 'Ignore all rules' means":

If you do what seems sensible, you will usually be right, and if not, mistakes are easy to correct. That's a good thing, because we all make them. No matter how bad the mistake, the old version remains in the revision history and can be painlessly restored. If we come to a disagreement as a result, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. (emphases mine)

well... my understanding is, if you do speedy delete there is no recourse, there is no 'old version', there is no revision history, there is no discussion, there is no weighing, there is nothing to figure out, there is no consensus, there is nothing to restore or look back on or check or have a look-see to see what could make it better or turn it into a stub or nothing... you have hammered it out of existence...

i think i saw something in one of the 'guidelines' that says articles like this should be turned into stubs, with requests for fixing and enhancing, rather than delete out-of-hand just because you feel like it... i guess we'll never know how many valid articles have been deleted off of Wikipedia just for these reasons

my two cents - 76.195.146.40 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is long enough already, so I'm going to keep my replies terse. Not intended to be curt; just concise.

Your point about the (in)applicability of speedy deletion isn't really relevant, as the article isn't currently up for speedy deletion. I believe we should focus on the current AfD process.
Speedy deletion is pretty swift, but it is not final. Although things like page history are hidden, an administrator can recover the article text. See also WP:USERFY and WP:DRV.
I think everyone would appreciate it if comments like "...rather than delete out-of-hand because you feel like it" or statements that others "misinterpret guidelines for their own agendas" were kept out of the discussion. That's not constructive. Assume good faith.
Not everyone is an expert in computer science, bioinformatics, and proteomics. That doesn't mean you get to talk down to them.

I understand that you care about this topic, dude, but I think you might find it helpful to chill out a little. If you have more reliable sources regarding Tranche that you can provide, and that will help assert its notability, please do so. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, i agree... trying to chill... but i would defend any article of scientific interest the same way, regardless of my expertise... it's not talking down to someone if you point out they are acting out of their depths... i see the same discussions about notability in art here on Wikipedia... i'm just more squeeky wheel then eloquent editor at this point, and i apologize if i verbally berserk... i didn't know about hidden recover and WP:USERFY and WP:DRV... thank you for your kind direction... i just hate losing any information of value...

oh, and i keep bringing up web content, not speedy delete, because that's one of the reasons given as to why this article should be deleted... see Roger's comment at the top of this page about web notability criteria... the topic of speedy delete i'm harping on in whatever forum i find... but here i'll limit my comments from now on, it's just i've chosen this as battleground 1... thanks again - 76.195.146.40 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why speedy deletion offends you so much. Have you read WP:CSD? It's pretty narrow in scope and really only applies to things that obviously shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. You also might want to watch Special:Newpages for a while for some insight into why we need speedy deletion. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and i apologize to any and all who find my remarks offensive - 76.195.146.40 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Too bad we don't have WP:SOFTWARE anymore, but I don't think WP:WEB strictly applies. In any case this fails WP:N at this time although it comes with a pretty strong pedigree. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N due to coverage here and here (Nature subscription required). JulesH 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you think that the sources amount the guideline's requirement of significant coverage?

Yes. Significant is difficult to define in this context, but due to the fact that both of these articles are from highly reputable sources and that they effectively describe this software as the best in its class, I feel that they mean the article is warranted. I also assume there is more coverage I have not looked at... I only looked at the first two pages of google results (for tranche proteomics) to find these articles, and there were many, many pages. JulesH 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Disagree that it's significant coverage. The Proteomics Journal is just a general roundup of available software, describing Tranche as "one approach" to "an existing need" and "the largest public repository etc". By way, "tranche proteomics" only gets seven Ghits with me (two of which are their YouTube promo). --ROGER ^TALK 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced, multiple external links. Though not necessarily notable, it is verifiable. J-stan ^Talk 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paternal bond

This page is unsourced original research. I posted a {{verify}} tag more than a year ago, and there's been no progress since. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Awwww, this is so cute :-)... LMAO.... I'm almost inclined to vote for keeping this, the way it states the obvious is quite disarming :-). If the author added a link to the statistics he mentions, I wouldn't have a problem with this article... It's certainly written in good faith. --Targeman 10:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I very recently saw a chart about saliva testoterone levels compared by single men, men with girlfriends, married men, and married men with children. Must have been in the abstract of a research paper or something. Anyway this article [27] (non-scientific report on scientific research) supports that, for example, though I'm not sure whether that saves the page from the charge of being WP:OR. cab 11:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant family-studies concept. Compare Maternal bond. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a real issue and not OR. SOFIXIT. violet/riga (t) 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needing cleanup/expansion doesn't equal unencyclopedic OR. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article contains nothing to alarm of being false. Although it must be referenced, especially the testosterone stuff. `'Míkka 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs work, not deletion. WP:SOFIXIT Dhaluza 20:14, 22 July 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. CitiCat^♫ 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sum (Unix)

Attempted to prod for notability and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Prod removed citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP:OTHERSTUFF being irrelevant to this article, it still fails WP:NOT#HOWTO by being nothing more than an article describing what it is, and how to use it. Spazure 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Looks like a copy of the sum manpage —Travis ^talk 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Unconcerned —Travis ^talk 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop as it is clearly marked as a WP:stub. I disagree with user:TravisTX as the page looks nothing like the Sum manpage. If Sum (Unix) goes though, then most pages referenced at GNU Core Utilities must go. May I also suggest that in the future User:Spazure discuss first on the talk page before marking articles for deletion. --Unconcerned 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's not identical, but one can't deny that it appears to be a slimmed-down version of the manpage. Frankly, I have to admit that I didn't even know about the list of GNU Core Utilities -- and would never have thought to look on WP for them -- but now that you point it out, they also seem to violate HOWTO. However, since the list has been around since 2004, I imagine that its merits have already been debated. Thanks for the info. —Travis ^talk 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That confused me a bit, as well. Apparently the nominator is just an idiot that didn't realize that WP:HOWTO is an archaic guideline, and not a reason to delete something. Luckily, it appears that she has decided to stop nominating things for deletion [28], so we shouldn't have to worry about this anymore. I've also been working to appropriately tag unreferenced and under-referenced windows, linux, and unix commands to help improve those articles so we can avoid dumbasses like her from reading one stinking policy and thinking that her interpretation somehow rules the entire damned site. 24.97.182.82 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spazure 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like it's copied from a man page and fails to assert notability. :: maelgwn talk 08:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the GNU Core Utilities is notable enough. —gorgan_almighty 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Unconcerned. It needs tidying up to make it more encyclopedic, but deletion is not warranted.—gorgan_almighty 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with most common Unix commands, there is plenty of discussion of this one. Might be useful to expand coverage to non-GNU versions (e.g. from this source). JulesH 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being mostly a self-taught Linux enthusiast I unfortunately lack the kind of Unix expertise required to expand the article. If you could please be WP:Bold and include the mentioned additions, it would be greatly appreciated. --Unconcerned 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I also have some books I can use for some linux references, but not for pure unix (as I've never worked with "real" unix, just suse, slackware, bsd, redhat, and a few other non-notable linux variants. Also links to the prior discussions discounting the howto guideline would help us smack idiots like the nominator down even faster. 24.97.182.82 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(software). Spazure 10:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN nobody other than the nominator feels that wp:howto is relevant, please speedy keep and block the nominator from wasting our time with future nominations for stuff that are so obviously relevant that they don't need a discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.182.82 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2007

WP:HOWTO is relevant to WP, but is not applicable to this article. Dhaluza 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HOWTO is not applicable here. Saying how something is used is not the same as saying how to use something. Dhaluza 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a {{tone}} to the article, as fixing the tone is all it requires. —gorgan_almighty 13:18, 24 July 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 but rename There clearly was no consensus for deletion. The proposals for a partial merge, losing the detailed info, were correctly answered that that removes the entire point of the article, as it destroys the referencability of the data. Those favoring a complete merge were out numbered by those favoring keep, and offered no indication of why this content would be better inside another article, or how to avoid the problems that existed before this was spun off. Proposals for renaming first emerged late in the discussion, but had strong support thereafter, and the current name is misleading. The main argument for deletion is based on WP:NOT#INFO. But that says that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers while this seems quite clear, and is long but not sprawling. It is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is indeed a narrowly focused collection. The point was also raised that time patterns in the data can be highly significant, and have been the basis for extensive public comment, thus indicating notability. WP:NOT also says: "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." This provides clear context. In short, the policy-based arguments for deletion have been answered, at least enough that they do not trump the clear lack of numerical support for deletion. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurgents killed in Iraq

This is a completely non-notable list. The number of insurgents killed in the war is an important fact which should be kept in the article on the war itself; however, having a month by month break down of this is completely ridiculous. This article is a violation of WP:NOT and an example of systemic bias - do you see a month by month list of casualties in any other war? No (if you do see one, then please nominate it for deletion too). D4g0thur 08:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This amazingly well researched and cited list, is err.... not really a list. It's a tally of numbers. It fails to be a navigation guide to other articles and the raw facts (for example x insurgents were killed during June 2006 - Decemeber 2006) could probably live here Pedro | Chat 09:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; it seems a waste to have all the work that went into this article lost. As I said in my initial appraisal, these figures belong in Post-invasion Iraq. D4g0thur 09:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with both of the above. We're talking about an article with 585 references, and which someone has worked extremely hard to get it as it is now. If that was my article, and I'd just made a few misunderstandings, I'd expect it to be put to right by a more experienced Wikipedian. If it was deleted, I would do something dangerous... It needs to be merged, like what was said above, although Post-invasion Iraq is already a large article. Lra drama 11:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I don't really know what should be done with it, but it has clear encyclopedical value--Victor falk 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, the author should work for the army. On a second thought, he probably does. I don't see the point of an inventory of anonymous cannon fodder. And am I the only one who feels this looks like a list of trophies? Like marks drawn by fighter pilots on their planes after they've brought down another "enemy" plane? Not only is this patent listicruft, it just plain feels wrong. Maybe I'm too sensitive. --Targeman 11:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're too sensitive. And that's a polite word for it. Nick mallory 12:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having close relatives killed in a war does that to you, I guess. --Targeman 12:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that AFD regulars are so used to seeing loose, unverifiable or originial research listcruft that when we encounter something so well referenced we have to pause. The problem is that despite the opening lead and hundreds of references this can all be boiled down to a few facts (specifically the number of people who have died in a given time period). Now we could get someone to create a bar chart with this data, or add the figures in to a number of other articles, but as an article in it's own right I can't see the value. Pedro | Chat
Keep. I echo previous comments in saying that this list has clear encyclopaedic value. Merging into Post-invasion Iraq is not an option, as that article is already very large. The best solution is therefore to keep it in it's own article. —gorgan_almighty 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a month by month report of insurgent casualties in Iraq encyclopaedic? This is more like a military report than an encyclopaedia article. Obviously it is just excessive; this is why, having thought it through more thoroughly, I suggest, rather than a merge, a smerge, as the article's topic deserves mention in Post-invasion Iraq, but only so far as having the total number of insurgents killed (maybe with yearly subtotals). This solves the problem of a merge making Post-invasion Iraq too big. D4g0thur 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is encyclopaedic because it is a NPOV article detailing previously published information and citing it properly. It would be nice to have some more actual text in the article, but that doesn't stop it being encyclopaedic. You cannot simply cut it down to a "total number of insurgents killed (maybe with yearly subtotals)". Why? Because the majority of the article is taken up by the references, and you can't remove those references without it becoming an un-cited, disputable list. —gorgan_almighty 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - great ammount of information which is well researched and encyclopediaec. Not completely sure where it should be merged, though. Jackrm 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The whole point of this article was to provide a place where frequent editors of the Iraq war could list the number of insurgents killed, with full references. If you look back to the edit history for January/February 2007, you will see that we were running into a problem reporting any verifiable number of insurgents killed. It seemed that every time an editor put an insurgent casualty total in the Iraq war info box, it was either deleted or had a ^{[citation needed]} added afterward. So to solve the problem of verification, I created the article as basically a really ugly list article (or link farm if you prefer) in order to; 1) show all the various incidents and tally them up 2) keep the tragically long list on a separate article from Iraq war article where the now 585 links would have created other problems. So, that's the background on the problem this article was trying to solve.

As far as what to do, I really only see four options:

Nothing. Leave the article alone until the media reports or someone uncovers a verifiable number that we can just link to in the Iraq war article and then this article could be deleted. A website such as [29], except from the insurgents' perspective, would be a perfect solution. Keep in mind, without the folks at [30] tracking coalition casualties would be much harder than it is--and perhaps some editor would have created a similar article to provide a verified source of coalition casualties.
Merge it into another article tracking casualties of the Iraq war, such as Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Of course, that would still create other problems such as the huge number of links that would be moved into another article.
Delete it. We could also delete this article, however that would bring us back to Jan/Feb 2007 in terms of having a verifiable number of insurgents killed. Also, at the moment I have been unable to find any other publicly available, verifiable number of insurgents killed. As such I would not support a deletion.
Change it in some way to satisfy critics. I suppose there could be some way of modifying the article's appearance to suit those who don't like the link farm look. I'm not sure what that is, but editors are a creative bunch.

Just my 3 cents. Publicus 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be more appropriate on any of Wikipedia's sister projects, say Wikinews or Wikisource? I'm only really familiar with Wikipedia and Wiktionary so I'm not sure whether there is another place for it or not. If not, perhaps we should just keep the article on a temporary basis, deleting it if and when an alternative is found. D4g0thur 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any of the other "Wikis". Publicus 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge as suggested above. The information is verifiable and useful, but this article cannot stay - it is a clear violation of WP:NOT#INFO, as it is nothing more than long and sprawling list of statistics. This is almost a word-for-word example of what Wikipedia is not. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great respect to User:Publicus for his statements and not taking owndership. No one so far doubts the quality of the referencing (how could they!) or that the subject matter is notable, it's just where to put the information in a more condensed form. If a number of editors are using it as a "tool" could it not be kept as an extension of someones user or talk page, noted on talk pages of the various articles, for those editors who use it ? Just a thought Pedro | Chat 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since it is a wealth of information, but not properly an encyclopedia article, would it be possible to flesh it out with context, meaning, and significanceas in why the numbers for each month are significant? I think this would take a fair amount of expertise on the war, but figured I would throw it out there for brainstorming, if it could be useful above and beyond existing articles about the war. I must echo the sentiment that completely discarding this article seems a waste. Eliz81 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the simplest solution would be to move it to a subpage of Talk:Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present; maybe Talk:Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present/List of insurgents killed in Iraq. Any takers? D4g0thur 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no basis for automatically deleting referenced accounts of the violent deaths of thousands in a war or military occupation, while keeping articles about the violent deaths of individuals, such as the Keep results for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Ann Crecente (2nd nomination) , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Danielle Jones , or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Anthony Walker. The month to month trend of the war/occupation of of immense importance, as witnessed by debate in the US Senate, with some opponents of a quick pullout saying "wait until September and see if it is going better then before deciding on a pullout or redeployment". One thing to note in the article is the dubious accuracy of body counts, which the US military misrepresented in Vietnam [31], and said they were not going to report at all in Iraq, then started regularly reporting in Iraq. Satisfies WP:N and WP:A. If length permits, it could certainly be merged into the article on Post-invasion Iraq , but others have said that article is already too long. It seems to have a double standard to have a speedy keep for articles about terrorists burning cars in the UK without injuring anyone but themselves Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 London car bombs, and to delete an article about thousands of insurgents being killed or blowing themselves up in an actual war or contested occupation. Edison 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that people should die; however, no matter how sad something is, it doesn't make it encyclopaedic. Further, the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid. D4g0thur 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not make an "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" argument. Rather, I noted the defacto policy of Wikipedia as expressed by recent AFD results, since these represent the consensus of what sorts of things belong in this encyclopedia. AFD results commonly cited as a basis for guidelines representing or not representing consensus. Edison 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am the user, 87.116.171.227,that has been editing this article, and I want to say a few things:

1.This article had already once before been nominated for deletion and survived the nomination with overvhelming majority. Here is a link to the PREVIOUS DISCUSION.

2.This article needs to stay because currently it is the only known source with an almost exact number of the insurgent dead during this war. No other source currently exists. Yes there are a lot of lists of coalition dead even the Iraqi army and police, but what about these guys. How can we edit the Iraq war articles without information on this very important source. What? Do we have to, when the war ends, put in the infobox number of insurgents killed unknown. If we put any number that we want to then without a reference it will only be deleted. This has to stay. The guy that nominated this article for deletion said on the discusion page of this article that a list of insurgents killed in any war is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Why not? In that case maybe I can say that a list of american soldiers killed in any war is not appropriate or maybe canadian soldiers at that I know, we have an article on wikipedia with a list of both british and canadian soldeirs killed in Afghanistan, is that not appropriate too.Top Gun

By all means, if you find any similar lists nominate them for deletion too. Reams of statistics, no matter how well researched, do not constitute an encyclopaedia article. I've already suggested a compromise (as it seems the statistics are needed for the article Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present) by moving it to a subpage of Talk:Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. This way it can still be used to keep track of the number of insurgents killed, but it would not be in the article space so the fact that it is not encyclopaedic wouldn't matter. D4g0thur

Tell me how it is not encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Top Gun (talk • contribs) 08:06, 21 July 2007

Read through What Wikipedia is not and you'll find that (under the heading "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (see WP:INFO)) "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopaedic articles on that topic." This is why I say that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. I think the article is well written and well sourced; however, that doesn't make it an encyclopaedia article. D4g0thur 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename The name doesn't reflect properly the article, and its too big for a merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, uh, who wants to fix 500-odd references? --Haemo 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename. Looks like appropriate content, but it has a misleading title. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are to rename my thoughts include Data on the number of insurgents killed in Iraq or Approximate Number of Insurgents killed in Iraq or maybe Reference Data for Insurgent Deaths in Iraq or Statisitcial information on the approximate number of insurgents killed in Iraq - but I have to admit none of these grab me all though they are more accurate than the word "List" which implies a name by name sort of thing, wheras this is currently really just the numbers. Pedro | Chat 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While like many others I'm impressed with the prodigious research and citation, I'm also uncertain it's encyclopedic as it appears to breech WP:NOR and, more probably, WP:SYN. It looks like something a Wikipedia article on the Iraqi insurgency should be linked to, not an article in its own right. Neither does it satisfy various requirements for lists in Wikipedia. It also has several problems with verifiability, such as vetting that each person cited actually was an insurgent, hasn't been double-counted, and the reliability of the sources doing the reporting (particularly since enemy dead tend to get over-reported by one side and under-reported by the other).Askari Mark (Talk) 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH states "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C."

This article is not a violation of WP:SYNTH because there is no position C that it is trying to advance. —gorgan_almighty 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Askari Mark. --ROGER ^TALK 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have something to link to for a source on insurgent casualties. And I'm sure TopGun would also be happy to stop adding all these sources. However, there isn't anything to link to--I've looked and looked but no one has any publicly available verifiable number of insurgent casualties. Publicus 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps List of reported insurgent fatalities in Iraq would be more accurate. --ROGER ^TALK 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. And given the citation "reported" seems a good word. Pedro | Chat 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept, I think the title should be changed to that. D4g0thur 14:56, 24 July 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, with no prejudice towards userfying. If anyone plans to userfy, please notify me. —Kurykh 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

I closed the DRV for this article as relist. My opinion is weak delete, considering that this is a trivia list and per precedent. Sr 13 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Comment I was the original editor who raised the subject of this Afd on AN/I. There were obvious concerns that although the Afd had (apparantly) been listed for 11 days, the Afd was still stuck with no consensus. ~~This was actually the 6th nomination of the article, over the last few years the afds had been raised non standard ways that made it confusing ( eg 2nd nomination and Second Nomination).~~

The Afd appears to have undergone five days on 9th July when it was renamed from 3rd nomination to 4th nomination [see diif] by Zenohockey who didn't amend the Afd day log to take note of the change.

My questions are :-

- If the Afd had have closed on the due date, would it have been deleted?
- Would the fact that some editors were unaware that this was the ~~6th~~ 4th Afd and not the 3rd Afd have swayed them one way or another?

Mike33 - t@lk 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This Afd is now the 7th nomination Mike33 - t@lk 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment No, this is the 5th nomination. The two italicized links are redirects and do not actually contain debates. --Core desat 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks text amended Mike33 - t@lk 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, there are zero reliable sources aside from the actual lyrics, which constitutes original research, not to mention that the actual subjects of some of these songs are unverifiable. --Coredesat 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just re-reading the essay on Listcruft, I googled references to masturbation and song in Wikipedia [Google minus User pages] and there does appear to be a popular theme albeit one that doesn't have a primary article. I think a google scholar search might pull up some interesting related articles [[32]], [[33]], [etc.] . If Wikipedia is an educational tool and not just an indiscriminate compendium of "stuff on the web", I think that a scholarly article could be produced from such a list and a lot of delving into other papers which touch upon the subject. Mike33 - t@lk 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase "as deliberately intended by their lyricists" shows that we can find reliable sources for all entries which satisfy the conditions for inclusion in the list. The lack of these sources at the moment does not make the subject unencyclopaedic. Remember Wikipedia is a work in progress so, rather than delete the list, we should be trying to find sources that verify the validity of each entry's inclusion. D4g0thur 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are important, as they show verifiability. The idea of sources possibly existing is not the same as having them now; all of this material should be sourced as it is added, or it is unverified OR. "As deliberately intended by their lyricists" is a claim that is not backed up by sound evidence, and cases to the contrary could be made for any of the songs there. --Core desat 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia, not encyclopedic, and given the sheer number of euphemisms for masturbation, highly impractical. >Radiant< 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. It goes against the rules stated here. Lra drama 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Using the Rationale from WP:ATS

_{"Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions."}

That is no way indicative that this would be included in such a definition. We have two clear factors in the title of the list - "Masturbation" and "songs" - join those together and we have the begining of a definative list. I agree remove all the nonsense WP:OR, slim the list to clearly recognised references and leave it open so that an article can be written about the place of masturbation in music. Apparantly, John Donne was writing about it too. Mike33 - t@lk 12:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, and not even consistently formatted. Darrenhusted 12:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor formatting has no bearing on the encyclopaedic value of an article. D4g0thur 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And AFD still isn't cleanup. In addition, we've just started using a promising new tag that calls attention to issues needing wider exposure or more manpower. In the circumstances, I don't see how its cleanliness is relevant; It'll be done before the deadline, no worries. :P --Kizor 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am voting to keep on the principal that it is against good faith to repeatedly nominate an article for WP:AFD until you get lucky enough to have the right set of respondents to delete it. This is just taking another stab at the same apple and it is wrong to do. I nearly voted to delete on the basis that the list is a shambles without "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood on it, but I have added that now. Irishjp 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason to keep an article. The article was nominated again because it was not properly listed last time. See the DRV linked in the nomination. --Core desat 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd isn't a vote, it is based on developing a consensus, five days of debate. There are lots of reasons why Afds are raised again and again, in the same way that articles are dropped from WP:GA and WP:FA, it certainly isnot a reason to oppose deletion. Mike33 - t@lk 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is no more of a case for deletion here than in any other unsuccessful Afd. You seen to have a lot to say on the topic and appear to have a keen interest in having it removed. You do not appear to be happy with just giving your opinion and be done with it, you have to comment on everyones reponses, and from this I can only assume you have something other than an objective opinion on this and your attempts to remove are in bad faith. Perhaps you were caught at it while you were younger? Irishjp 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irishjp, please refrain from making personal attacks; it is counter-productive. D4g0thur 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TRIVIA and per this being useless listcruft. As a side note, I notice that the consensus was Delete after the 4th nomination. So why is the article still here? I cannot find any links to a Deletion Review. —gorgan_almighty
- Comment The Deletion review is listed in the opening statement by the Afd mover but see Deletion Review. Mike33 - t@lk 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and (in many cases) original research ➥the Epopt 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial per above. Listing songs by (apparent) subject matter fails WP:NOT. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to remind you that the list is not based on apparent subject matter but on a subject "as deliberately intended by their lyricists" (as stated in the list's lead). D4g0thur 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list has not got a single reference to back this statement up. To say that masturbation was "deliberately intended by their lyricists" is purely speculative/interprative without supportive evidence. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the list is not currently referenced properly, doesn't mean that it can't be or won't be referenced properly. If this survives, I suggest we remove all entries and then slowly add any that can be sourced like "Turning Japanese" [34] or "I Touch Myself" [35]. D4g0thur 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whack it off... er, Strong delete, not at all referenced. Pure trivia. Listcruft. Original research. Need I say more? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete: as I said at the DRV, this is a topic that may have been the subject of scholarly study. If so, and if that fact can be documented with proper references, then I would support keeping the list (but limiting it to properly documented entries). Otherwise, it's trivia, and should be deleted. Note that I'm not just asking for references on the individual entries—I'm asking for documentation that the topic itself does not constitute original research. Xtifr _tälk 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, ya sicko... Delete as original research with no references to back it up. Many of the songs listed seem to have only tangential references to the alleged subject. Looks like trivial coverage to me. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial intersection not worthy of a list (or category) absent sources discussing the topic in depth (rather than just mentioning it). Since there are niether sourcxes listed in the article nor uncited analytic text it should be deleted as an unnecessary and unhelpful list (i.e. listcruft). Eluchil404 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Purely from my Idealist postion because there is so much talk of trivia and listcruft - but - "Does one thing exist without the other?" If this list ceases to exist do references to masturbation in other articles about artists/songs cease to exist [Wikipedia pages about hand jobs in song google search]? Trivia is disjointed, in Wikipedia there are 80 clearly defined accepted referneces in the articles to masturbation. Trivia is in episode 12 series 3 of Malcolm in the middle reece ate a Bob Jones Pie. (well maybe not that bad).

I certainly don't like lists, more often than not they are a hinderence to the information I want to find. With google we can wikisearch without the b*llsh*t. There is no policy about WP:LC, and this doesn't fit into it even. Idealism says that if the subject exists in wikipedia (not just to fill in red links) then the subject exists as a whole. Mike33 - t@lk 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Having to be in 5 nominations just to get your way kinda says something. Give up. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a valid argument in AfD. Resolute 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - as opposed to "delete per nom"? At least I'm showing flavor. I say keep, but rename to "List of Songs referencing Masturbation". You can't assume that the song is ABOUT in, but you can show that it REFERENCES it. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on comments earlier & in the Deletion Review, the criterion (& perhaps title) should be songs primarily about masturbation. Lists of songs on topics are encyclopedic, as a part of the apparatus for organizing the articles.

to remove an article, you need to win one AfD out of 5--or however many it may take to win one. To keep it, you need 5 out of 5. The provision for repeated AfD biases WP process towards deletion. The equivalent of asking the other parent is asking repeatedly until the parent gives in rather than maintain the originaly correct position.DGG (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still think categorizing songs by their meanings is trivia per WP:FIVE - Also, it is WP:OR to categorize songs on their meanings Corpx 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument in the last AfD. pointless trivia, and having a song mention masturbation =/= being about masturbation. Resolute 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very well kept and done. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete. After the first Keep AfD, why do we need the rest?!? This list has only gotten better since the first AfD. Please let this one be the last one, so we can get back to writing content. Lentower 03:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a completely unreferenced and trivial list. Most listings are there because of original research by editors based on their own interpretations of the lyrics from what songs are listed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lentower has begun a canvassing of editors to view this AFD. Any comments after this would have to be taken into consideration as users that he had personally contacted to view this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from being nominated for the 5th damn time for deletion, I don't see anything wrong with that song list. Grue 03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. `'Míkka 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the merits this is WP:OR. On principal see my 4th AFD vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrelevant classification. --Eyrian 04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep look, as long as each song in the list is sourced, there is no problem with the content. Deleting this would be mostly on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, there are exactly zero sources. Also, of all of the nominations, it appears that only the first AfD actually ended as a keep, and judging by the !votes, and the WP:ILIKEIT keep arguments, that should have been a no consensus or possibly a delete. The other four AfD's ended in three no consensus votes, and finally a delete that was overturned on a technicality. The nomination history for this article shows there has never been a consensus to keep. Resolute 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where else would one go to find this sort of data except WP? It's why we exist. --Gene_poole 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#IINFO—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing indiscriminate about it. In fact it's about as discriminating as it's possible to get. --Gene_poole 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I presume no one really doubts that these songs do, indeed, at least mention masturbation, even if they aren't strictly "about" them. So, we have an encyclopedic topic (songs about/that mention masturbation), verifiable and verified information, and a clear, readable article. Some context (e.g., a narrative history of masturbation in music) would be good, but it's not required. I'm sorry if I was supposed to do something else in addition to renaming the previous AfD, but it's time to face facts: among the previous four (!) AfDs, it is clear that at least a sizable portion of the WP community wants this article to stay. Unlike Resolute, I believe the onus is on those who would delete an article as thorough (not to mention, let's face it, downright interesting) as this one to convince everyone that it should be deleted, not the other way around. A consensus to do this has not been established. --zenohockey 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely trivial classification of music. Hell I even doubt some of them. Turning Japanese by The Vapors, is rumoured to be about masturbation, but I have neever seen any confirmation. That therefore is original research. Add that to the complete lack of references, and you have an article in a pretty poor state on a very insignificant subject. Viridae^Talk 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmation: [36]. Your opinion on the subject's significance is irrelevant; I don't think that List of New York City parks is very interesting or significant - I can't really see an alien race that finds the ruins of our civilization saying "I wonder what the parks in New York city were..." - but obviously, some people do. D4g0thur 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider that to be confirmation, considering it isnt referenced to anything either. Viridae ^Talk 09:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, my opinion on the subjects relevance IS relevant. Shall I translate it into a language you might understand: Very few of these song are notable for their mention of masturbation, and as such do not warrant a list. Viridae^Talk 09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "I Touch Myself", "Turning Japanese" and "Relax" are all notable (if not entirely then partially) because of this. Just to name a few off the top of my head. D4g0thur 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The vast majority aren't. And you are yet to provide any strong evidence that Turning Japanese is indeed about that subject. I believe the band has never commented... Viridae ^Talk 09:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it turns out your right about "Turning Japanese" - although the song is famous for being about masturbation it is actually just about being in love (see [37] for an interveiw with the band confirming this). That still doesn't cross off "I Touch Myself" and, apparently "Touch of My Hand" [38]. D4g0thur 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

Strong keep. Wikipedia is the new Book of Lists. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you give a reason why it should be kept? Neil ╦ 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite comments about listcruft, Wikipedia is a repository of countless lists that subjectively could be condemned as worthless. Can't help thinking that this particular list attracts (repeated) negative attention because of its subject matter, while a similar list of (oh, I dunno) songs about rabbits might be overlooked entirely. The fact that the material is largely unsourced is an argument for improvement, not deletion. If we deleted all unsourced articles and lists we'd overnight demolish a massive chunk of the Encyclopedia... the purpose is to improve articles from unsourced stubs to FAs. They all start somewhere... and it's rarely a very good place. --Dweller 12:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a minor part of the above point the most important bit (in my eyes) is "The fact that the material is largely unsourced is an argument for improvement, not deletion. If we deleted all unsourced articles and lists we'd overnight demolish a massive chunk of the Encyclopedia... the purpose is to improve articles from unsourced stubs to FAs. They all start somewhere... and it's rarely a very good place." Which cannot be brushed away with "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". D4g0thur 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can source it, then source it. The fact the article has managed to survive four AFDs, each one with the promise "I'm sourcing it / It's being worked on", yet the article remains unsourced original research, does not predispose me to believe it can be sourced. There is a difference between unsourced-but-could-be-sourced and unsourced-and-could-not-be-sourced. Neil ╦ 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no original research thanks. Fails WP:SYNTH. Many of the songs are not actually about masturbation, for example, "Blister in the Sun" is explicitly not it (read its article). Also WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT. Neil ╦ 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be considered listcruft by some, but this has been through AfD 4 times and there appears to have been no consensus in previous AFDs. There are sources out there that verify that such a list seems to be in popular culture: see Cracked.com's list as an example, or

Nadamucho's similar article. Even Digg has got in on the act, discussing it here. It seems that there are sources out there, whether they meet reliable sourcing criteria is another matter. However, the above links are verifiable, so it could be seen as encyclopedic. In the 3rd AFD, Aecis stated it should be kept but referenced, and here I have done just that - I have sourced information, and referenced it. If you wish to discuss the sources go to the talk page, that might not be a bad idea. Either way, this does seem to be the source of controversy here on Wikipedia, and it seems this may become another No consensus AfD. Please read my arguments and consider them. I rest my case. Apologies for the length of this. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone was interested, I've begun to create a referenced version of this (only including verifiable entries) here. If this version were up for deletion, would you still vote the same? It contains no WP:OR and is completely verified. D4g0thur 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given in the nomination rationale last time. Bulldog123 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:Lentower seems to have been canvassing keepers (See User_talk:Ryulong#Canvassing) from previous AfDs. See User talk:Lentower#Canvassing. [39]

[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] Bulldog123 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Notifying an editor who has shown past interest in an article is not canvassing, it is common courtesy. Although if he was only notifying those who voted keep, then it is not in good faith. D4g0thur 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I wrote pretty clearly he was canvassing keepers, which usually is synonymous with "editors who have shown a past interest in an article" anyway. If he was just contacting all past participants in the 4th nomination, then ok. This isn't that. Half of these people didn't even participate. Bulldog123 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how this information is trivial. Puerile perhaps, but that doesn't make it trivial. The information is subject to the same verifiability criteria as any other article or list on Wikipedia. This should be ground for improvement by referencing, not for outright deletion. The list makes it clear that masturbation is an important theme in songs. In listing such songs, the list provides both content and context. One "list of songs about..." would be trivial, but they have to be seen in conjunction. Perhaps indeed those lists should use some standard format, to be used in future lists. These are all suggestions for improvement. That is what this article may need. But there is no ground for outright deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was notified of this AFD by Lentower. I don't know if (s)he contacted all the participants of previous AFDs of this list, or just the keep !voters. If the latter is the case, (s)he should get a slap on the wrist for canvassing. But that shouldn't change the outcome of the discussion. AFDs are not votes, so shouldn't be a simple headcount anyway. No matter how many keep/delete !voters there are, if their arguments are void, it is within admin discretion to close the article against consensus. I want to point out that I did !vote to keep the list in the previous AFD, and that I am to some extent responsible for the current layout (so I accept part of the responsibility for the lack of referencing). A ecis^Brievenbus 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the article still contains no secondary sources. This is inappropriate for any Wikipedia article; they cannot be constructed solely from primary source material. --Eyrian 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for my attempt to rectify this problem. If the only problem with the article is a lack of references and WP:OR then it can be solved - deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic. D4g0thur 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the assertion "deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic" is incorrect. Secondly, I still maintain that this article is an irrelevant classification. This is only compounded (and reinforced) by the fact that there are no real sources. Yes, you've listed a few, but they're hardly reliable. For instance, Cracked is a magazine devoted to satire. Then there's a tripod homepage. --Eyrian 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion, as specified here Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing. It's not as if it's impossible for many/most of these songs to be referenced using RS. Your argument that it's an irrelevant classification is stronger, but subjective. If you were writing an essay on sex in popular culture, it would certainly be relevant, useful and (when improved) encyclopedic. --Dweller 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing most certainly can be a reason for deletion, depending on whether the content can be verified "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". That is most certainly true for the vast majority of the content in this article. It very well justifies deletion. If desired, it could be recreated, sourced to reliable works from the beginning. From what I've seen, that's not very likely. Further, I doubt that a list of unverified/unverifiable assertions that random songs might contain a reference to masturbation would be particularly useful for anything. Even if Wikipedia's purpose were to be useful. --Eyrian 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would refute the argument that a lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion. As the link pointed out states, if an article can be improved through editing as opposed to deletion it should be - but that's a big if. The fact that this article has undergone multiple AfD's over a period of two years and still does not have any reliable sourcing, if anything, bolsters the argument about lack of sources. I fail to see how anyone can argue "this list can be sourced" when two years and several discussions of opportunity have resulted in a big zero in terms of sources. In any case WP:V tells us the burden of proof when it comes to sources is on those who add the material, not those who challenge it - those who argue this has sources have had ample time to refute the challenge and have not done so. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that other editors are showing that the article can be sourced. I really hope that the concerted efforts to have this deleted aren't prompted by prurience. --Dweller 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not. The revised article that I saw had about 5 entries, mostly unreliably sourced. If 99% of the content is unverifiable, the article should be deleted, and gradually rebuilt. The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end. --Eyrian 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, you said "The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end." It sounds to me like you are on a personal crusade or vendetta against this article. That aside, the sources in that article are not unreliable just because you disagree with them. D4g0thur 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling them unreliable because I disagree with them; I'm claiming they're unreliable because they're unreliable. Do you honestly see no problems with using a satire magazine as a source? Regarding a personal crusade, I came upon this article on this AfD, and I think it should be deleted because of its obvious faults. --Eyrian 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sources used to be prefectly acceptable. Just because a magazine publishes satire does not prevent it from publishing fact as well. D4g0thur 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satire magazines are the pioneers of phony articles. Yes, they could conceivably publish something that's true, but they cannot be considered reliable. Stores are routinely made as a meta-joke, or to satirize the notion of news. It simply cannot be considered a factual source. --Eyrian 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A satirical magazine can be considered a reliable source. Further, you have not raised any concerns with any of the other sources. D4g0thur 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: There seems to be a consensus towards deletion in this AFD. Some of the delete votes are based on a lack of referencing in, and hence verifiability of, this list. I therefore suggest moving this list into the userspace of D4g0thur (talk · contribs), to give him/her a chance to improve the list. Any thoughts? A ecis^Brievenbus 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that it's a largely irrelevant classification. What makes a song "about" something, and not something else, is highly subjective. Is mentioning it enough? Half the verses? It's just not encyclopedic. --Eyrian 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Spend 5 months *improving* (?) this list, it still doesn't change the fact that it isn't a notable list per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. It is the inverse of the argument "Keep it because it is so well sourced!" Bulldog123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to maintain it on a subpage of my userpage as I beleive it has encyclopaedic value but needs tender love and care. Any editor who wants to help is more than welcome. If and when I/we get it to a stage where it seems "good enough", I/we will put it back in the article space - this might take a while though. D4g0thur 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, it is listcruft. Yes, it is largely useless. Yes, it is trivial. But Wikipedia is not paper. I feel that any and all of these lists, as long as they are not indiscriminate and properly sourced, have a place in Wikipedia. This list is not indiscriminate because it only lists songs that are *explicitly* about masturbation. This is list verifiable, because anyone can look up the lyrics. All in all, I fail to see how this encyclopaedia improves by deleting this list. Why spend time deleting well-written content? Sala Skan 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid claim of verifiability. "The thermoelectric effect doesn't need sources because anyone can go look at a wire and see that it works for themselves." Articles should not be constructed completely from primary sources. --Eyrian 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would you verify such a thing? If the list says "this song contains the lyrics: "I been caught wankin'" and thus it is about masturbation", then how could that possibly be untrue? Sala Skan 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it could be a metaphor. They occasionally pop up in art. --Eyrian 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, rereading that you don't really think it adequately answers User:Salaskan's question do you? Please don't get worked up over this too much - after all, its only Wikipedia, its not real life. D4g0thur 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it? Art frequently contains things that mean something else. Just because the singer says a word, doesn't mean they're referring to the actual act of masturbation. Further, please note that everything that I think and do is part of my real life. --Eyrian 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it *could* theoretically be a metaphor doesn't make this list unverifiable, in my opinion. If a certain song contains the line "I been caught wankin'" we can safely assume that it is about masturbation. That is no reason to delete the list. Sala Skan 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your safe assumption is blatant OR, and quite unacceptable. Please read WP:OR to understand why. --Eyrian 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming something that is obviously true is not OR. Saying that it is OR is blatant WikiLawyering. D4g0thur 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR is when an editor claims that something is intended one way without a source, in a nut shell. Claiming a lyric, despite obvious intentions to what it means, when you have no reliable sources as to what the correct meaning is, is OR. Don't wikilawyer when you obviously can't. — Moe ε 03:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, thus, this is not OR. You have proved my point for me. D4g0thur 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is OR, it lacks reliable sources. No sources = Original research, period. This page also has copyrighted lyrics on it. Unless you can actually provide a policy that says you can commit copyright infrigement.. — Moe ε 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warrior shall we go on a patrol removing every quotation? or are song lyrics a special kind of copyright? Do you have any NEW POLICY which says that lyrics and book quotations are different? wow I'll have a real party deleting when I see this policy Mike33 - t@lk 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone realizes WP:NOT#PAPER refers to style not content. Stop mis-using this. Bulldog123 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bulldog123 is the arbitrator of WP:NOT. Content is policy - style is guideline. How can Policy ever refer to Guideline? I have never been refered to as many WP pages in the last two days. Essays and guidelines but very rarely policy. Mike33 - t@lk 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no clue what you just said. Bulldog123 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Moe Epsilon, I was actually talking about the revised version but I can see how that was not clear, sorry for the confusion. D4g0thur 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just trivia. It's a kind of trivia about sex (sort of) which seems to get it a lot of supporters, but it is still just trivia. Greswik 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: many !voters have said that this list is trivia. Out of curiosity: what is trivial about it? Is a list of songs about a certain subject trivial? Is this particular subject (masturbation) trivial? And what makes it trivial? Please enlighten me. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this list contains any song that has the briefest mention of masturbation, even if the point is trivial in regards to the work as a whole. Of course, one can't really verify this since most of the entries are unsourced.--Eyrian 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bd2412, and at this point I would suggest a speedy keep closure per WP:IAR to end this nonsense. Wikipedia is not censored, and if that is what you're looking for I suggest you create an account somewhere else. Burntsauce 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go tossing around accusations of censorship. I have no problem with Wikipedia featuring anything based on offensiveness of content. Please don't conflate people's distaste for what is being perceived as an unreferenced treatment of an unencyclopedic organization with wanting to purify Wikipedia of naughty ideas. Ignoring all rules over the backs of dozens of delete votes seems to be to be a very bad idea. --Eyrian 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Pure trivia and listcruft. What's next — List of songs about winking? On Wikipedia, a list should at least be useful for navigation, but the subject appears to call for a list of all songs, whether notable or not or even if the song was principally about masturbation. As contrived, this list is actually a "list of songs mentioning (or alluding to) masturbation", which is a trivial list. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless, trivial list. No secondary sources, as noted above, hence the article is constructed entirely from Wikipedia editors' own interpretations of the lyrics. Even where this is straightforward, it still contravenes WP:NOR. And, as per Eyrian, I strongly object to Burntsauce's allegations of censorship. Neither the nominator, nor any of the Delete !voters, have advocated deletion because the content is inappropriate; it isn't. We advocate deletion because the content is trivial, inadequately sourced, and not consistent with policy. Walton^One 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and every other delete above this one. R_O (Talk) 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable (if that is indeed a word!). Smacks of WP:OR all around. Keep voters above have come up with about 2 songs that truly belong on a list like this, and even then IMO it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. - fchd 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs, and not even consistently formatted. It is 50k of OR that we can live without, if the editors want to add the note "this song is about mastubating" to the song pages then I have no problem with that, but this is OR listcruft. Darrenhusted 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Reeks of original research, and a unreferenced research at that. — Moe ε 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that an article about the subject is more appropriate. This undoubtably can be the skeleton to the article, but without references to the naked eye it all looks like WP:OR. There are at least 100 articles songwriters and the odd single that refer to masturbation, so it certainly isn't trivial. An article about this is going to be a real labor of love and I think that when we have so many articles which need improving, it is problematic. There aren't any copy-vio problems that have been raised in previous Afds, really the lyrics are all that save it from mundanity. I looked at the two foreign language versions - the Finnish has been deleted and the Portugese list has had very few updates since 2005. At least we seem to have some consensus. If an editor has saved it for prosterity and is willing to rework it, I think its noble. The amount of music genre involved would make it almost impossible for a single editor to achieve. Listcruft isn't a happy word and Afd isn't a happy place ever. If somebody posted an article in mainspace on listcruft it would be speedy deleted as "something made up at school". I often think some editors view Afd like le tricoteuse. Mike33 - t@lk 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given by Mike33 at various points in response to others. Plus due to general caution whenever I find the main arguments for deletion surround using the twin prongs of attack of "trivia and crufty". Such reasons are generally only used when no real reasons exist that would stand up to inspection. Mathmo ^Talk 12:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly OR, I'm afraid.--Aldux 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Terminally original research and listcruft. DWaterson 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even a list of songs about masturbation - they just mention it. I wouldn't think it'd be worth keeping even if that wasn't the case, since it's just original research and trivia, but the fact that the page doesn't stick to its own topic gives me no qualms about chucking it. fuzzy510 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and allow this one to grow. I thought this article had been whacked off of Wikipedia during the last AfD debate, but since it apparently wasn't, what's it doing back up this soon? However, as noted before, popular music is about the only medium for speaking about masturbation. One doesn't read poetry about it, nor is it the subject of television shows, film, news articles or literature. The number of songs indicates that pop music satisfies a desire for this form of the sex act, and provides an outlet for it that, for obvious reasons, can't be found elsewhere. If it offends one's morals, or, worse yet, one's anal ideas about "what Wikipedia is not", don't walk in on it. Mandsford 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last Afd was delogged by accident and was stuck in no consensus. I tried to get the nominator to relist it without success and took it to AN/I, relisted it and it was closed twice as a delete. it went through DR and was reopened as a proceedural error. I think there is now some consensus and will get whacked off. Mike33 - t@lk 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it will take a few more days to reach climax of this discussion, it looks like it will end with "The result was d*****." I'd spell out the d-word, but I don't want the fantasy to end prematurely for anyone Mandsford 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above comments; this is most certainly not about censorship (at least for me and several others; I can't speak to people's motivations). --Eyrian 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be definition issues etc, but I don't see how the subject of songs is "trivia" (as long as it is the subject). The paranoid (CfD in-joke) may like to note the category is also listed for deletion there. Johnbod 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. What's wrong with categorizing this anyway? Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but if kept, prune quite a bit). I'm not convinced that listcruft is a problem, but the list is a mess. Are the lyrics fair use, for example? That's an important question. The big problem is that many of the songs aren't about masturbation. "Captain Jack" by Billy Joel is not about masturbation - all it mentions is "you just sit at home and masturbate", on one line of the entire song, which has nothing to do with masturbation. "All Figured Out" by Bowling for Soup appears to barely mention masturbation as well (I don't know the song, but the lyrics don't look to be about masturbation). "Bracelets of Fingers" is very abstract, but doesn't appear to involve masturbation beyond a questionable title reference. "88 Lines About 44 Women", "Across the Sea", "American Lips", "Barrel of a Gun", "Bullet", "Climbing the Wall", "Come To Me", "Darling Nikki", "Donald & Lydia", "Electrobix", "Flexing Muscles", "Shadow Zone", "Sincerely, Me", and "St. Swithin's Day" just mention masturbation, and "Yummy Down On This" appears to actually be about oral sex. "Claire Danes Poster" is, surprisingly, more about using the title poster as a substitute for a girlfriend, and not as a masturbatory aid. If "But Not Tonight" is about masturbation, it's a very subtle reference. "AA XXX" doesn't even seem to mention or imply masturbation. I've only looked through some of the songs; there are surely more that should be removed for this reason (as I strongly believe that a list of songs mentioning masturbation would be listcruft). Songs where the artist is a redlink should probably be removed too. On the other side of the coin, the list is also bound to be woefully incomplete of songs that should be there (missing, for example, Sex Over The Phone). Disclaimer: I've heard maybe one or two of these songs before, so I can't guarantee there isn't a connection to masturbation I didn't see. Ral315 » 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the major problem (IMO) with the list, the problem that I'm trying to fix. D4g0thur 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Objection to userfy suggestion. It was suggested somewhere above that because of the "lack of referencing in, and hence verifiability of, this list", the list should be moved "into the userspace of D4g0thur". I strongly object to this because "Wikipedia is NOT a personal web host" (WP:NOT#USER). Why on earth should an article be moved to the creators user space in order to avoid deletion on AfD? How is that an acceptable solution? In fairness, you might be able to justify it by saying that the user will ' work on it from there ' but personally I still feel that that practise is questionable at best, especially with an article like this that, by D4g0thur's own admission, would be in user space for a long time. If the article is really that bad then it should simply be deleted, and only restarted if it can be made verifiable and well referenced from the start. —gorgan_almighty 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason that it will "take a while" for me to fix the article is that I am quite busy at the moment and won't be doing any major editing for a little while. I'd like to say, I am not the creator of this article, but I feel it deserve a chance at being better. If, after my attempts to improve it, it still fails inclusion criteria, then I will not keep it stored in my userspace. Further, it is very common for Wikipedians to work on articles while keeping them in their userspace. D4g0thur 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, we're allowed to remake deleted content, and to userfy deleted content for improval or transference purposes. Userpages are for personal use, and content that is moved there from mainspace is effectively deleted from the encyclopedia as far as the readers are concerned - we can't, say, redirect deleted articles to userspace copies - so it definitely doesn't count as avoiding deletion. I see no problems with this. Further, WP:NOT#USER disallows using Wikipedia for hosting personal content or self-promotion, but this is neither, just an article that doesn't advertise D4g0thur and bears no overt connection to him. (Disclaimer: No prior dealings with the article, its starters/major editors, or D4g0thur.) --Kizor 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of your interpretations, but my reasoning is as follows:

It is unreferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable (as argued by fchd above), therefore it cannot be fixed. It is permanently Original Reasearch.
If it is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article, and cannot be fixed, then it is nothing more than personal content hosted on Wikipedia.

—gorgan_almighty 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list could certainly be improved, but the list topic itself (songs that refer to masturbation) is worthy of a list. Atropos 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are more egregious articles out there threatening the sanctity of Wikipedia. Alcarillo 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some hierarchy of badness that we have to go by in nominating articles? I don't get it. Bulldog123 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much badness, so little time. Gotta prioritize. Or face up to the fact that Wikipedia is (and perhaps ought to be) a crap magnet. And this little nugget we're talking about here has already survived several attempts at deletion. Let it go already, people. Go find other badness to hunt down and destroy. Alcarillo 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given a reason why it should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. The fact that this is what, the 5th or 6th attempt at deleting it tells me that the Wikipedia community, whatever its collective wisdom, is interested in keeping this article around. And it's completely harmless. Chop it up, edit it down, improve it -- whatever. But don't just kill it because you don't like it.Alcarillo 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is OR, but so is every plot summary of every episode of Lost (TV series) or Grey's Anatomy etc. that's given in WP. And it is stuff like this that also contributes to the charm of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wants to be a mirror of people's knowledge, then there's got to be a good sprinkling of trivia as well. Jayen466 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a vast difference between a tv episode and a list where half the songs don't even deal with the topic. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given a reason why it should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although many keep arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most of the delete arguments are either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:RUBBISH. WP:ATA is a double-edged knife, but when it comes down to it the closing admin will just ignore all the !votes and such anyway. D4g0thur 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? The delete arguments read like WP:NOR and/or WP:NOT to me. Neil ╦ 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the main delete arguments so far are as follows:

Unreferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable, therefore Original Research (WP:NOR)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO)
Wikipedia articles are not directories - lists or repositories of loosely associated topics (WP:NOT#DIR)
Wikipedia articles are NOT a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (WP:SYNTH)
This list is nothing more than trivia (WP:TRIVIA).

—gorgan_almighty 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of the list's triviality are pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT;
Suggesting deletion based on an article lacking sources is not backed up by WP:NOT, it is basically an argument of WP:RUBBISH;
WP:SYNTH is not relevant here in any way; and,
Songs primarily about a topic are not "loosely associated".

— D4g0thur 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply incorrect. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. That's right there in WP:FIVE. There's nothing to do with not liking it. Most of these songs are not primarily about masturbation, as the article makes quite clear. --Eyrian 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that an article should only be deleted if the subject is not worthy of an article. Claiming it is trivial is not the same as it actually being trivial; a subject which has had research put into it (see [62] and [63]) is not a trivial subject. Thus, arguments of "delete as trivia" or the like are simply an attempt to justify what is really a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. D4g0thur 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't the subject the article title implies, it's the actual article subject. A referenced explanation of masturbation in popular music would be an excellent article, and would not be deleted. A list of bare-mention OR trivia, which is what this article is, should be. This laundry list of bare-mention references would have no real relevance in constructing the aforementioned good article.--Eyrian 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy enough with the deletion of the current article as long as we don't salt the earth as, although the current article is quite poor, its subject is definately worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. D4g0thur 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - as has undoubtedly been noted already by many other editors, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs have nothing to do with each other beyond some greater or lesser degree of reference to masturbation. The list is rife with original research as demonstrated by the many, many entries on the list whose representative lyrics make no overt reference to masturbation thus requiring interpretation on the part of an editor to decide whether to include it or not. There is no objective standard as to how much of a song must be about masturbation to make the song "about masturbation," which is another instance of original research on the part of editors in making that decision. The problem is well illustrated by the very first entry on the list, "88 lines about 44 Women." The song is 88 lines long and exactly one of them references masturbation. 0.01136% of a song mentioning a particular topic does not to my way of thinking make the song "about" that topic but clearly to someone else it does. Find me an objective standard and verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic of songs about masturbation, along with reliable sources for every single song on the list, and then the story is different. As it stands the list is irreparable and must be deleted. Otto4711 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current OR-filled state, the subject lends itself much better to a category. 17Drew 18:11, 24 July 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robert A. Heinlein characters

This unencyclopedic list has been tagged for cleanup for months. It is full of redlinks, and this is because of its central problem: it does not have inclusion criteria, other than being a character created or written about by Heinlein. Notable Heinlein characters might be an encyclopedic topic, so I would not be opposed to drastically cutting back, and renaming. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable Robert A. Heinlein characters and cut down to only those that have either articles or entire sections within the article on the book they appear in. Heinlein's characters are an important subject and this list provides a useful navigational resource, but only if it is restricted to characters that we actually have discussions about. JulesH 07:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename as per JulesH. Would seem useful for navigation - we simply need to put some advisory text on the header not to add redlinked characters. Pedro | Chat 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and trim per above. It needs to go on a diet. It's such a pity somebody did all that work. Bearian 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't see why people can't go directly to articles about the specific work that the character appears in, but I would keep if somebody can find thematic "meta" character studies of his works. Wl219 12:55, 23 July 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 and redirect to BASE jumping. The S in BASE stands for "Span (a bridge or arch)", so it works.-Wafulz 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge jumping

Article and content fails WP:N. No references exist to show notability. :: maelgwn talk 07:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. In addition to providing no sources, the article seems to suggest that bridge jumping is performed exclusively by students of Cambridge on this one particular river, which is absurd. -Juansmith 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as described, the practice necessarily involves involves a punt and, according to the punting article, "today there are probably more punts on the Cam than on any other river in England". Espresso Addict 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I can vouch for the truth of most of what's here, though it used to be called bridge hopping, back in the day. It's been going on since time immemorial, so there are almost certainly reliable sources eg [64]. Perhaps the sensible route is to merge with List of bridges in Cambridge and/or the Cambridge section of Punt (boat)? Espresso Addict 07:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it has been going on since time immemorial, but it seems absurd (and arrogant) on behalf of the article's author to think that Cambridge students are the only ones engaging in it. I was once on a guided rafting trip on the Provo River in Utah, and our guide hopped out of the raft, over a small bridge, and back in. I've witnessed it on other occasions as well. If the activity is genuinely popular at Cambridge, then perhaps it bears mentioning in the Cambridge article. But it hardly satisfies the notability requirement by itself.-Juansmith 23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Espresso Addict 08:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After researching on Google, I think it completely fails Wikipedia:Notability. To me, it sounds like a small activity that a group of students from Cambridge like doing to amuse themselves, which is of no significance or importance to others. Lra drama 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to BASE jumping, which is where most people would expect it to be, or suicide. 132.205.44.5 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted, it should be redirected to BASE jumping, which includes jumping off bridges. --NE2 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok do you have any references to say that BASE jumping is refered to as bridge jumping. AFAIK its not a common term to describe this. It may involve jumping off bridges but its not described by the term 'bridge jumping'. :: maelgwn talk 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — and redirect to base jumping. The article in itself surely fails WP:N as it seems to me only the students at Cambridge University participate in the activity. *Cremepuff 222* 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BASE jumping as the S stands for span as in bridge or arch. There seems to be no indications that the Cambridge variant is particularly notable. Alternatively, there do seem to be some sources [65]. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a well known past-time in Cambridge. Here is one reference to it from the Cambridge University website (search for "low bridges").[66] Perhaps an improvement would be to take away some of the Cambridge references and make it more general. This is certainly no more to do with BASEjumping than bungee jumping is. Capitalistroadster's reference relates to people jumping from a bridge into water. If (s)he reads the article properly (s)he'll see that this wiki relates to climbing from a punt (gondola type boat) onto a bridge, over it, and down the other side back onto the punt. Nothing to do with jumping into the water as per the news article linked chris_white_22 13:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is a random activity of some students at a school, with only a passing reference in 2 article presented here as evidence of notability. A mention at the school website is not an independent and reliable source and fails WP:A for the purposes of showing notability. The title should be something more like Bridge-hopping at Cambridge as it was described in the Times article in passing as cited above by Espresso Addict, because the present title is not descriptive of the subject of the article and is misleading. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. It might deserve a brief mention in the article about the school. DO NOT REDIRECT TO BASE JUMPING That activity involves jumping off a high place with a parachute. This article is about climbing from a little boat onto a very low bridge and then climbing back into the boat, for whatever reason. It is about as nonencyclopedic as an article about rollerskating down a sloping sidewalk at a particular college or about sliding down the bannister at another school. Edison 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how many places are there where you are able to do this activity? Perhaps this might be better as a sub-section in the page on Buildering? As much as I'm in favour of keeping the article, I would rather that reference was made to it in another article than lose the information forever. As written in the Buildering article, there's not a lot of written information on it - this doesn't make it unverifiable, just harder to verify. There are certainly three videos that show "Bridge Jumping" happening, and the only ones I can find that show people "Bridge Jumping" in this fashion (from a punt, over a bridge and back down) are in Cambridge. [67], [68] and [69] Rather than ridiculing wiki's, perhaps people trying to moderate (all of us) could try to actaully go out and research things we've not heard of...and see if they truly are verifiable, rather than just write off a half-finished page. I know that blogs are not great places to cite - but this one references a "tradition" of bridge jumping [70] and has entries dating back three years. There are many more [71], [72]. Trip Adviosr [73] also mentions the sport on it's Cambridge guide page. chris_white_22 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Cambridge roof climbing guides cited in the buildering article might well discuss bridge hopping, as the Bridge of Sighs bridge hop is a well-known climbing challenge. If so it would verify the long history -- does anyone have access to copies to check? Espresso Addict 09:22, 21 July 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 bu user:Jni as patent nonsense. Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nood pownding

Non notable slang, not a dictionary, no sources. superβεεcat 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No notability, non-encyclopedic, not a dictionary, and clearly just one person's slang. -Juansmith 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete non-notable, unattributable, neologism. Carlosguitar 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No entries appear when put into Google search, so it's NOT noteable. It also defies Wikipedia:Attribution, and it's written like a very informal speech. Definately one to go. Lra drama 11:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The vandals haven't noticed that "noob" and "pwned" have been replaced by this expression. Acroterion _(talk) 11:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pownd this nood per nom. --Targeman 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spoody dewlete as nonsense. Typo made by some kid on a laser tag forum, of all things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlosguitar. Hut 8.5 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baleete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Speedy Delete that's right, two speedys. I've heard some good gaming terms but i must say Nood Pownding is new to me. Jackrm 14:54, 19 July 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. Sr 13 07:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myth (computer game) development

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All articles must be referenced using reliable/reputable sources and correctly cited and must pass notability guidelines ~~for software~~ (furthermore, this article is about the game's development, not the game itself). Article had a prod tag which was removed without explanation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - original research. Shalom ^Hello 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely fascinating and untypical entry in the annals of computer game development; however, regrettably it's definitely not the kind of document Wikipedia is looking for. Could be summarised, briefly, in Myth (computer game) if there were actually good sources for this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep development articles are common around here, and are considered notable and relevant. By the way, WP:SOFT has nothing to do with notability ;) Giggy _U^CP 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I fixed the nomination. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already discussed in adequate depth at Myth (computer game series) JulesH 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while a notable game series, this content is mega-trivial and unencyclopedic. Sample line: "Meanwhile, Project Magma worked on Myth II v1.3.2 (March 14th 2003) allowing Myth II to run natively on Mac OS X, then the ambitious v1.4, v1.4.1 and v1.4.3 (June 14th , August 7th, August 30th)" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 19 July 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 redirected. Sr 13 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical control protocol

Incorrectly-named article about the Link Control Protocol. -- Iknowyourider (t c) 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirected as this (incorrect) expansion of LCP shows up even in textbooks.[74] --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 19 July 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 CSD G7. —Kurykh 05:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Landy

It is a work of fiction not notable Neacail 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author and only editor of this page blanked it, so I'd say {{db-author}} (which I tagged it with) applies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KLBC

Article is about a local cable TV channel. Notability has been alleged since they rebroadcast a network. But that would mean that it should be treated as a translator which means that it is included in a section of the network article and not in a article. In addition, KLBC is the call of a real broadcast station. Vegaswikian 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability, unless someone shows this station is of more than purely local interest. Someguy1221 05:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a licensed broadcast station, but using incorrectly the call letters of a radio station in a different city. Fails WP:N due to lack of sources. Edison 19:54, 20 July 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. Sr 13 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold McGinnis

Fails WP:BIO. A short biographical article, over half of which deals with the author's self-published novels. Largely the creation of LitLives and Blainedavid, two single purpose accounts. The notability tag, in place since 19 April 2007, has remained unaddressed. Victoriagirl 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have an ongoing problem with non-notable "writers" coming to Wikipedia to insert bogus information about their completely non-notable "writings." If their books aren't good enough to be commercially published, why should we give them a platform here? Qworty 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. CitiCat^♫ 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No real asertion of notability in article or talk page, so surely CSD A7 applies? Also author fails "Amazon" test. Pedro | Chat 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not notable per WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:52, 19 July 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 as transwikied. —Kurykh 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tongkrongan

Transwiki cleanup. No remaining encyclopedic content and title doesn't even show up in text. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously transwiki. Calgary 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. The fact that the title doesn't appear in the text isn't sufficient to delete it, but it's definitely unencyclopedic. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has already been transwikied, but was not put through AfD. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now. Bearian 18:50, 19 July 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. Sr 13 07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renee LaRue

No arguments found within the article for notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Fails to establish notability. Besides, if I haven't seen her yet, she's not major or even significantly minor. Qworty 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that was intended as a joke, but I have to ask: So whether or not you personally know something is the arbiter of whether it's real or notable? Morgan Wick 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on his area of expertise, if he's, say, a major porn film producer. :) =Axlq 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, notice that the WP:IDONTKNOWIT argument followed the word "besides," thus implying it was not the reasoning behind his !vote, which would appear to be "Fails to establish notability." Someguy1221 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. =Axlq 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster guitarist 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I hate this word, LOL!!!! XD This article made my day. And check out the titles of her movies on IMDB. LMAO!!! XD Brilliant :-) --Targeman 10:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those are some good titles on IMDB though, and it's sad I have to delete a fellow Blues fan (hey who knew?) Wildthing61476 13:03, 19 July 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Shejunshuj

Original fiction as far as I can tell. -- RHaworth 03:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Totally non-existent, like those "memoirs" of dead Italian warlock boxers we sometimes get. Qworty 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe fiction, and I can't tell what universe it belongs in. (Neither the wikilink nor Google are helpful.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent in-universe fiction. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. No sources. The article linked was also crated by the same user and also appears to be a hoax. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "hoax". Inner Imen (currently tagged for speedy deletion) refers to the region as existing in "the world of Harim". I have no idea what fictional universe that's supposed to be a part of, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's alright, I just wanted to prove to someone that people could write this out. You may delete it as soon as you can, seeing as I have NO idea how to do that. As for the extra link for Inner Imen, I made it because somehow the brackets appeared around the phrase, and I understood that was the only apparent problem. -Irken Trad 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you mean that you created the article just to make a point about how "easy" it is to create a bogus article on Wikipedia? That sounds like nothing more or less than trolling. Qworty 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was a juvenile mistake on my part, since I didn't really even think of how I would delete it afterward. I'm not a repeat offender, and this won't happen again. -Irken Trad 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as author requests deletion. So tagged. Irken, only admins can delete articles. Morgan Wick 19:01, 19 July 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 CSD G12: copyvio. —Kurykh 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western masters karate system

Not-notable Peter Rehse 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 03:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it's a copyvio of various pages from their website, e.g. [75]. It is also extremely non-notable, with only 13 GHits, none of which are reliable sources. [76]. cab 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio, not notable and no sources. Oyster guitarist 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by karate as copyvio. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:16, 19 July 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. Sr 13 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen

Non notable author, one self published book, no sources. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the book has ~600 Google hits and she has only ~200. No sources, no assertion of notability. Why does it mention that her father was an architect? Seems like filler to make the article bigger. Useight 02:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published (with a co-author) = non-notable author. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and not notable author. Oyster guitarist 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the book actually has only 61 Ghits once you specify "Down over Normandy" Myrtetus. Article created by Adam22z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Adam Lorentzen. No relation, I'm sure. Gordonofcartoon 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This line is quite telling: "She is best-known for her book, Down Over Normandy, a novel about her deceased uncle, John Myrtetus, who was killed in World War II." We have had a recent spate of non-notable, unpublished "writers" who have vandalized articles here by including "information" about unpublished--and as far as we can tell, unpublishable--book manuscripts about their non-notable or barely notable grandparents. We've got to draw the line in the sand here and make sure Wikipedia isn't turned into a repository for unpublishable personal family memoirs that are not actual books by any stretch of the imagination. These vanity vandals must be stopped. Qworty 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book printed in 500 copies [77] with no significant reviews does not constitute notability. She needs removing from the list of notable residents of Collingswood, New Jersey as well. Espresso Addict 06:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I can't quite see the reason to get emotionally involved over it.DGG (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book and author do appear at Amazon [78]. However general guidelines indicate that an author should have either multiple works or one particularly notable work to be notable in themselves. Pedro | Chat 08:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you take a look at the official Wikipedia policy for book notability, you'll see that an Amazon page in and of itself does not confer notability for our purposes here, as any self-published (like this one) or vanity-published book will have an Amazon page. Self-published books are not notable under Wikipedia book policy. This article fails as a direct violation of that policy. Qworty 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Qworty. Not true - not all self published books appear at Amazon as indeed not all books published by a publishing house will appear there either. It depends on what Amazon want to sell! However it was just a note. I agree with you on the non-notability as per my comment above - multiple works reviewwed by non-trivial multiple reviewers is a guideline for notability on books and then (though not definately) by extension the author. We haven't got that here so Delete.Pedro | Chat 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as I agree with the above, but think Amazon and numbers of Ghits ought to count for something. Bearian 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another self-published author with no notability or outside reviews to back up the work. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a self-published book on Amazon and a father who was an architect does not automatically make one notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please delete Susan Lorentzen (direct link) and Susan Myrtetus (direct link) as CSD R1 redirects to deleted pages, if the article considered here is deleted. This is per two 19 July 2007 RfDs that were prematurely trying to do this. BigNate37_(T) 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was my fault. I started the procedures when it became clear the AFD was shaping up as Delete; I didn't expect the closure to take so long. Gordonofcartoon 01:15, 24 July 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 wub "?!" 16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Myers

Nonnotable bio. Looks like a resume. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment hmmm, seems to have many thousands of google hits. But creator suspiciously called "Bartonmyersinc" :)Merkinsmum 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but clean up - looks notable enough to me, but as you say it does look like a resume... ugen64 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep awards offer some notability, and the names imply they are major awards in the field.--Chaser - T 02:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems pretty notable although it does look like a resume. Also cleanup. Oyster guitarist 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article looks like a resume about an average professional guy, with accomplishments commensurate with millions of other average professional guys his age. Nothing notable about that. Also, his involvement in "notable projects" doesn't itself make him notable. I don't know about the awards. I know we're supposed to avoid the term "vanity page" in these discussions, but really now, there's clearly a conflict of interest here, and the article is written by an editor with a username that violates username policy. =Axlq 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we approve this article, we're going to have to write an article about every single person in the phone book. Practically every person who owns a business of some sort has won some kind of minor local "business award." This does not establish notability. All it establishes is a pulse. Some people are truly notable and deserve articles; others just have a job.Qworty 04:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I echo Qworty's statement; where does it end? In reading the article I see nothing that is remarkable. He is a mildly successful architect, but then so are the heads and executive officers of every archtectural firm in the world. None of his buildings set precedent or took architecture in a new direction. This seems like at best it can be used to promote him and his firm; but it really is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of press coverage makes him sufficiently notable, I think. Any relation to the earlier mayor of Norfolk by the same name? Grandson maybe? —David Eppstein 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more evidence of his notability: Barton Myers is considered by many authorities as "Canada's best architect." ... Barton Myers was one of 10 architects named by Progressive Architecture as "cutting edge" designers. Japan Architect identified him as one of the top architects in the world, Nas Dom of Yugoslavia named him among the top 50 world architects. —David Eppstein 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. (By Espresso Addict, not me.) —David Eppstein 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. I don't understand this area enough to make a recommendation, but the RAIC Gold Medal [79] appears a significant national award, and he's also a professor at UCLA [80].Espresso Addict 06:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep, per further evidence uncovered by David Eppstein. Espresso Addict 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Three full professorships, first Thomas Jefferson Professor at the University of Virginia, & Graham Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, currently Professor of Architecture at University of California, Los Angeles These appointments attest to his recognition as exceptional by his peers. Do universities appoint non-notable architects as full professors of architecture? I can't evaluate the intrinsic importance of the buildings myself, but the various professional associations in two countries can, and they gave him TWELVE awards for them. Or don't they know about what makes architects notable? Professional awards have always been accepted as the best evidence of notability in any profession. 224 News items in google news, as found by David Eppstein. (Some duplicate, but there seem to be about FIFTY unique stories) The NYT has about 10 different articles about his work. The Washington Post writes an article when he so much as leaves a project. "Renowned Los Angeles Architect to Receive Medal." -- Knight-Ridder.

But contrast: "minor business awards" ; "average professional guy his age", "just has a job" , "millions of other professional guys his age", "involvement in notable project doesnt make him notable" . DGG (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Commentary. It doesn't matter if he's had a hundred professorships--according to established Wikipedia policy, being a professor does not establish notability. There are hundreds of thousands of professors in the world--we're not going to write articles for each of them merely because they're professors. That would be absurd.

The fact remains that this architect has never designed anything of note that anybody is aware of. His work has been entirely routine. And his awards mean nothing. I'm reminded of what Woody Allen says in Annie Hall about Los Angeles: "All they do out here is give out awards." Barton Myers' awards are a joke--if we're going to write an article about every human being who has won an equivalent mid- to low-level business award, then every real estate agent and gas station owner and Kiwanis supporter in the world is going to rate a Wikipedia article. That is NOT how notability is established. Awards should be the equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize or a Tony or an Oscar to confer notability--not just a local or regional mid-level business award.

Finally, news stories themselves, even if they appear in a paper in New York state, are not enough to confer notability. If they were, every kid who ever rescued a cat out of a tree and got his picture in the paper would rate an article here. That is never going to happen. A news story about Barton Myers moving from one state to another in no way makes him notable. Why not? Because it doesn't describe him doing anything notable! Millions of Americans move from state to state every year. So what? A non-notable news story about a non-notable guy doing a non-notable thing cannot be used to establish Wikipedia notability.

So there is nothing really notable about Barton Myers. He is just another guy working in an office. He worked in an office in one town, then moved to another town. He was honored with business awards that are on the level that any realtor or Quiznos franchisee might get. None of his projects are in themselves notable. Notability has not been established for him on any count. He's just another guy with a job. Qworty 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The average Quiznos franchisee doesn't get his new contracts reported in the New York Times, nor can a Quiznos franchise be parlayed into a professorship. And there may be hundreds of thousands of professors in the world, but there are not hundreds of thousands of named chairs at top research universities. —David Eppstein 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh yeah? Follow this link [81] to a New York Times story that is in fact about several Quiznos franchise holders. According to your "notability" "standard," (but not Wikipedia's) each of them should therefore have a Wikipedia article. You'd better get busy writing those articles! They will be speedy-deleted, just as this Barton Myers article should have been. One of the franchisees, in fact, owns three Quiznos--he's starting to sound even more "notable" than Myers! As to your point about the professorships--it's Wikipedia policy, not me, that rules that professorships do not convey notability. If you disagree with the policy, by all means try to have it changed, instead of arguing about it here. Qworty 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no policy denying notability to professors. The absence of a policy is not the same as the negation of that policy. It's not WP policy that heads of major architectural firms must be deleted, either. Nor that people with "Q" in their names must be ignored in AfD's. We can make up all sorts of policies that don't exist, but I don't see why citing their nonexistence is relevant. It is policy that people with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are notable and while not policy it's a guideline that professors with significant professorial accomplishments are notable, however. As for why a multiple-franchisee whose sad story formed an NYT article isn't already in WP: perhaps nobody but you cared to find it; see WP:WAX for my opinion about the relevance of its nonexistence to this debate. And anyway, we were talking about "the average Quiznos franchisee", and that news item suggests that you have picked one that is far from average. —David Eppstein 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myers flat out fails notability on five of the six points you reference, and IMO on the sixth one as well. Here they are:

1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

On the final point, I think we've shown that Myers' local awards in Toronto and other towns do not rise to the notability standards, so he fails on the sixth criterion as well. As far as awards go, I'm sure I can find Quiznos owners--lots of them--who've won local business awards, who've had their names and even pictures in the paper, and who teach a business course at a college. None of this, not even in combination, will rise to notability for a Wikipedia article. Qworty 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that he passes very strongly WP:PROF points 4 and 6. For point 4, see the 20 items under "notable projects" in the article. For point 6, see the roughly 50 awards listed on his web site, maybe 2/3 of which look like they are at least at the state or national level, contradicting your assertion that his awards are "local". —David Eppstein 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now shifted the terms of the argument. Point 4 has to do with determining notability for academic work. None of the 20 items you reference has to do with academic work. Thus they cannot be used to establish Point 4. As for his awards page, there are thousands of real estate agents who have similarly "impressive" lists of business and professional awards listed on personal websites. Such awards do not confer notability for our purposes here--we're not going to write articles about all of these realtors or Little League coaches or whatever. Myers would be a significant architect if he had designed even one significant building, but he hasn't. Qworty 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Academics in an artistic field such as architecture are often evaluated academically on the basis of their artistic accomplishments rather than their research publications. As for the hundreds of realtors and little league coaches that allegedly have comparable awards: I don't think the governor-general of Canada offers awards to little league coaches and realtors, and any little league coach would be happy I think with a single state- or national-level medal, but WP:WAX. As for "even one significant building", six of them are significant enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're shifting the terms of debate again. It doesn't matter whether colleges and universities think Mr. Myers is artistically a significant academic--every university thinks an "artistic" professor is "significant" or they wouldn't hire the person in the first place. What matters is whether Mr. Myers rises to WIKIPEDIA standards of notability, not a university's standards. As far as his awards go, the third party who makes the final determination here will have to decide whether the one award you cite, in and of itself, is sufficient to establish notability in terms of Wikipedia. But I seriously doubt it. Qworty 19:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep, very notable person. Callelinea 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bare assertion doesn't make it so. I see nothing asserting sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. I do see a conflict of interest. =Axlq 13:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Named professorships at two major universities, plus awards coming out the ears and media coverage of his projects? Keep, and good job to David Eppstein and DGG for finding those links. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

almost all the references were there in the article when it was nom. for Afd. For my part, I just called attention to them. David E. found some impressive additional ones. DGG (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, call it a general "good job," then. =) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. But I consider some sort of search merely due diligence for this sort of discussion. —David Eppstein 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources look good, and he seems notable enough. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable enough as an architect and the article is detailed and referenced. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep. Seems notable enough, but the links and references are in need of serious clean up. Uranometria 09:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on SPA and sock. User:Blueberryman appears to be a Single Purpose Account regarding the Barton Myers issue. Also, User:Blueberryman has been accused by another editor of creating the sock User:Skippy30 in order to edit the Barton Myers article. See the warning here, at the bottom of the page: User talk:Blueberryman. And checking the history shows that the User:Skippy30 account was used to vandalize the original VfD tags on the article when this first came up for debate. Qworty 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Blueberryman formerly had a different username which made his conflict-of-interest wrt this issue more clear, as Merkinsmum's comment at the top of the page indicates. But since neither he nor his alleged sock have commented here, I'm not sure why it's relevant for the AfD. —David Eppstein 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entire history of the article is relevant to our discussion here. The conflict of interest you refer to is vanity self-promotion, a charge which any and all sock edits further substantiate. This editing behavior undermines the case for notability. In other words, if Barton Myers were truly notable, don't you think someone besides someone at Barton Myers Inc. would've figured that out by now and started an article here? It is not against Wikipedia policy to edit under different user names, but this is a case of THREE user names being manipulated in order to establish a false sense of notability to the subject of this article. That is highly relevant to our discussion here. Besides, just read the article. After all this time, it's still nothing more than a resume in paragraph form. It's very crummy, lackluster writing that fails to sound notable at all, no matter how many trivial links and references are appended at the very bottom of it. Qworty 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep -- major architect. When top universities start appointing minor Pokemon figures to top chairs, then we can talk about Wikipedia's notability standards soaring over UCLA's. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with Significant Cleanup. The article is a mess - but that does not justify an AFD, nor does it diminish notability. I don't care whether he actually is notable or not - multiple, independent sources appear to think that he is. That's good enough. Best, ZZ 11:40, 25 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Tiptoety

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

The result wasNo consensus WP:DICT is at best ambiguous it does say "Wikipedia is not a usage guide" yet with in that section is does say But see also jargon file; articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on hacker culture are very welcome, and insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have. . Transwiki to Wiktionary isnt complete taking some terms at random; overs, lay, dish licker(s) have nothing to clarify its useage within articles here; Lacks ticker while not covered ticker has the meaning heart and lack has a defination, a reasonably educated person could be expect to comprehend the term; Firm does state shortening of odds.

With the discussion below these two are the basis for consideration, knowing the above its unreasonable to delete out of hand at the moment. Additionally Cuddy Wifter has indicate that he'll source the article and clean it up to comply with wikipedia policies. I've added cleanup sourcing tags and copy to wiktionary tags.Gnan garra 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian and New Zealand punting glossary

Glossaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This content has been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Australian and New Zealand punting glossary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Manual of Style, at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Format of the lists, expressly recognizes glossaries as a valid type of Wikipedia list article. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion allows for deletion of glossaries under certain conditions, not generally. Nomination does not support its claim that "Glossaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the content has already been transwiki'd, Delete this page. Useight 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that glossaries of useful terms in various topics may well be encyclopedic. However, this is probably better suited to Wiktionary so if it has been transwikied delete. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But a glossary is not a dictionary. Please look at {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, it links directly to List of glossaries. Then you might look at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 7#Glossaries. If you are deleting one glossary you have a long way to go.Ga rr ie 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a compelling reason to keep them is found, all the glossaries should be transferred to Wiktionary and deleted from here. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A referrendum on glossaries shouldn't be held here, necessarily. However, one problem I have with this article, and most of the glossary articles, in that they are unreferenced and appear likely to stay that way. I'm going to go Neutral until I can think about this a bit more. On a side note, I think replacing "punting" with "horse racing" in the title would be an improvement, as not every term is related to betting, and it's less slangy also. CitiCat^♫ 04:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary--Sefringle^Talk 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Oyster guitarist 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while I may not agree with the policy, 'not a dictionary' has not been shown to apply to glossaries. (See List of glossaries for examples). Perhaps a new discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and this discussion tabled until a decision can be made on glossaries as a whole. CitiCat^♫ 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — In addition to Wikipedia not being a dictonary, the article has not sources. Unless some can be found, transfer the page to wiktonary and delete the article here. *Cremepuff 222* 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT - I think a bunch of terms and their definitions is no different than having a page for each of them. Corpx 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ but absolutely not for the same reasons stated by those above. <later change>(Strong keep, see majority author's statement of intent to source)</later change> The reason I think this should be deleted I'll get to, but first, as this appears to be a test case by the nominator, let me provide a defense of the glossary, in general, as an encyclopedic animal.
- Dictionaries are not glossaries. They have different structures, different uses and provide different content and meaning. Glossaries provide an interrelated list a set of definitions for a subject, and by doing so provide general knowledge and context for that subject as a whole. The fact that a single definition removed from that indivisible context would be "just a dictionary definition," fails to contextualize. A dictionary does not provide the cross-referencing utility that these glossaries do, and even if, when transwikied, glossaries were to remain in the form they do here, that form is more the province of an encyclopedia than a dictionary, despite the fact that both here and there we have expanded the institutional roles to some degree.
- Wiktionary entries do not generally (and are not likely in the future) to link to Wikipedia articles for further information, for clarity, for context, etc. Thus we lose much of the nesting, cross-linking, information exploration effect that glossaries provide here.
- There are multiple glossaries which are used across many articles to define terms of art/jargon simply by linking to the glossary section. While it is possible to link to Wiktionary entries, doing so is less intuitive than linking to glossary entries, requires more piping, requires a person to find each Wiktionary entry separately—isolating glossaries from the groups of articles they form a useful part is just less user friendly and will reduce their utility.
- Glossary entries may contain material beyond that of a simple definition entry which is the typical role of a Wiktionary entry, but which material is right at home here, and the likelihood of that more-encyclopedic-type-material being added after removal to Wiktionary probably hovers somewhere around zero.
- Glossary entries are sometimes appropriately expandable into articles, but currently reside in a glossary awaiting expansion, red-linked or not. The path from Wiktionary entry to article here is very attenuated—probably not even likely, whereas the entry here is a shiny red button.
All that having been said, there is only one reason I see to delete this particular glossary and it is a compelling one in my view—no sourcing whatever. Being entirely unverified is a deal breaker for me. My !vote automatically changes to strong keep in the unlikely event someone starts a campaign of sourcing this article.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has appendices designed just for this sort of thing. Wiktionary:Appendix:Contents states that appendices are "most often used for glossaries of words with a common topic, but can also be used for grammatical or other lexicographical information" (emphasis mine).

We use wikilinking on this project to familiarize users with new terms. I looked through the "What links here" for this particular glossary, and maybe it's not representative of the typical glossary, but it doesn't seem to do much for the encyclopedia. It's linked to in a total of 5 articles. Half the links to it are just "See also" links, and the function of other half wouldn't be seriously impaired if they were changed to point to Wiktionary.

If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Wikipedia, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at, for example List of professional wrestling slang which has incoming links to more than 200 articles, or Glossary of wine terms with about 250 incoming links and in which most of the entries link to articles in their own right, with quite a number of unlinked entries appearing as good fodder for future articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of wine terms is only linked to in so many articles because it appears in the "See also" section of Template:Wines. You're welcome to make stub articles for any of the encyclopedic wrestling terms. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki if necessary. Possibly a useful resource, but not suitable for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki and then delete as WP is not a dictionnary/glossary or annex.--JForget 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to WP:DICT here is a complete misunderstanding of what it says and means. Agree with Fuhghettaboutit that it needs sourcing (and that nominator is trying to push a "test case"), and would go further that the entries need to be more explanatory to have sufficient encyclopedic value, but those are not issued raised by this AfD. Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries. The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty basis is to attack all articles that contain glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack WP:SUMMARY as invalid. If it weren't for the fact that the article has some problems unrelated to WP:DICT this would be a "strong keep". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in support of keep: To quote from WP:DICT: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." Glossaries are "articles...about...concepts". Glossaries are not articles about "a word or an idiomatic phrase", and fail the wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used...)" Glossaries (when properly written) clearly do the latter, not the former (any that does the former will usually be an obvious WP:NOR and/or WP:NPOV violation). I could go on, but it seems unnecessary to point out every single way in which WP:DICT simply does not apply here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. What part of wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion criteria does this fail? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing. A glossary is not a noun, verb, or any other item listed there as satisfying the inclusion criteria; in the Wikipedia context, a glossary is an article that explores, in an encyclopedic manner, the notable terminology relating to a subject, and how those terms inter-relate. That Wikitionary has started, with its rather recent "Appendix:" namespace, to also include glossaries of a sort is of no relevance to the questions raised here, since Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, and has different standards and methods of verifiability/attribution. One might as well say, "this should be deleted because JoesBlog.com has glossaries already." Wikipedia generally does not care what Wiktionary is doing, or vice versa, with the exception that simple dicdefs on Wikipedia are relocated to Wiktionary, and if a dicdef over there starts taking on too much of an encyclopedic article character in its "Usage notes" section, it is recommended that the commentary content there be moved to the relevant WP article. And that's it. Removal of all glossaries from WP will do incalculable harm to numerous articles that depend up on them (especially given that direct links in prose to Wiktionary in lieu of links to WP articles is strongly discouraged, and distrusted due to the lax sourcing standards at Wiktionary). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the creator of this article. From looking at its history, I would think it was probably the first article I created for Wikipedia. I accept the criticism that the article has no references. I can only plead an initial enthusiasm for the Wikipedia concept, and a complete ignorance of the details of policy and guidelines. To Citicat, Fuhghettaboutit and SMcCandlish I can assure you that I will rectify the lack of references, as my time permits, over the next few weeks. The reasons why glossaries are a legitimate part of Wikipedia have been stated by others, but this recent decision on baseball jargon is just another to add to the list of decisions to keep glossaries. The policy of stand-alone lists (point 5) would also suggest that glossaries are legitimate. I wrote this article for Wikipedia as my small contribution to the sum total of human knowledge. I did not write it so some member of the Wikipolice could consign it to an appendage of Wickionary. Cuddy Wifter 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would appear from the nominator's comments here about glossaries, and the nominators contributions on 18 July, where 8 glossaries (all beginning with the letter A) were PROD tagged in the space of 5 minutes, that this Afd was not made "in good faith" but is the start of a campaign to remove all glossaries from Wikipedia. If the nominator and the people who support the removal of glossaries from Wikipedia wish to make that case, could I suggest that you change the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy so that it unambiguously states "Wikipedia is not a glossary" otherwise you are just wasting the time of people who create genuine content for Wikipedia. Cuddy Wifter 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki to Wikitionary, as none of this is source, and thus fails verifiability policy here. Giggy _U^CP 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move across to Wiktionary - Fails WP:NOT but is not in itself a bad article and would be a valuable contribution to that resource.. Zivko85 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the advantages of contributing late is you get to read the earlier discussion, which explains quite clearly that glossaries are not at all among the things covered by NOT. Im glad to see the distinction, which I hadn't realised. It makes sense. the discussion also seems to show the willingness to source it. DGG (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Car

No real notability for this. I've tried to find reliable sources but searching for "Phone Car" with "Howard Davis" brings hardly anything[82], just the two links that are already in the article, and neither of them are about this, they just mention it as part of the topic. Nice photo, but it's just a novelty car, there must be thousands of novelty cars in the world. Saikokira 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11; completely non-notable; and, as a self-proclaimed publicity stunt, speedy-worthy as spam. — Coren ^(talk) 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nice tights. It doesn't qualify as spam, because the article not an advertisement for the company - it is an article about the car - accordingly, it doesn't qualify as a G11. (You could G11 the Wienermobile if you could rationalize that one.) But, unfortunately, the car itself has very little coverage, so there's no notability outside of the bay area. Maybe if he went on a national tour.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Saikokira Harlowraman 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete until he gets some converage on TV or a magazine or something reputable. Useight 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless it becomes notable. Oyster guitarist 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might not say so if I knew the extent of the Motor Trend coverage, but there's not even a citation for that. Notability not established.--Chaser - T 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Weekly World News is seriously being cited as a source, then we need an article on Hilary Clinton's alien baby. Acroterion _(talk) 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it gets more significant coverage. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a put-on by a person who is trying to look serious but is succeeding only in looking ridiculous--like those hypochondriacs who keep going from doctor to doctor until they can fool one into giving them pills. We're not responsible for giving Telephone Man his medication. I say we exile him to Uncyclopedia. Qworty 04:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Devil's advocate here. This guy is using it as a prop to plug his business. A hypochondriac simply thinks that there really is something wrong with them. Hate to say it, Qworty, but that's a borderline non sequitur. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll go out on a limb here and say keep. Being featured in the Petersen Automotive Museum, Weekly World News, and Motortrend I think is significant coverage. That is assuming that being "featured in" isn't merely a trivial reference. --Android Mouse 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If the claimed exhibition and article in a major motor magazine were properly referenced in the article and verifiable, it would go a long way toward satisfying WP:N. I note that the creator of the article, User:Buckyboy28 was not informed on his talk page that the article was up for deletion,as is customary for AFDs, so I request that the deletion debate be left open the usual 5 days to allow him a chance to furnish more details of these two claims to notability. I left a note informing him of this AFD. Edison 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're right that we should try to inform article creators about AFDs of their articles, that account hasn't edited since early June. Don't hold your breath.--Chaser - T 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the guy have a bumper sticker on the back saying, "Hang Up and Drive"? Does he drive around the city asking passersby, "Can you hear me now?"? I think I'm getting more entertainment value than encyclopedic value out of this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:40, 24 July 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. Admins are not slaves, and while {{Afd-mergeto}} is a good idea, it doesn't always work. If anyone wants to work on the merger afterwards, they can do so from the edit history. Mango juice^talk 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Monash

AfDs for this article:

This article was already nominated for deletion and the consensus was to merge. Not only has the merger not been attempted, but the editors appear to have abandoned the article since [83]. The article therefore still fails to meet notability guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Monash University. Only 481 Google hits isn't very notable. Useight 01:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it had its chance as a merge. It failed. Student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was supposed to be merged. Oyster guitarist 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worth a brief mention on the Monash University article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Per prev discussions on the ground it lacks WP:N to stand on it's own. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some might take Coren's comment here to mean that Coren has volunteered to complete the merge. Other than that, nothing has changed since last time.Ga rr ie 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; it was. It was also made clear that my participation was not welcome. Rather than throw oil on the fire, I stayed away. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies then, that part isn't at the article's talk page.Ga rr ie 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That occured on the Monash University talk, actually. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why delete something that should be merged? Are there guidelines on who who merge something once an AfD comes up with merge if the original authors aren't available? Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash University. *drew 09:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash University. Someone "broadcasting" on the internet is not inherently notable, as the operation might be if they had a broadcast license. There is but one reference which appears to satisfy WP:A. Their period of "temporarily" licensed broadcasting in the past helps make the case for notability, but apparently it was a less than full license. The really unintentionally funny parts of the article are the claim they they operated for many years as a "pirate" station, apparently broadcasting over the loudspeakers of the PA system in a building, as if no one could have disconnected them from the PA amplifier, and that they got an AM license, but for a frequency that could not be picked up by normal AM radios. Perhaps somewhere there are references to clarify these impressions. The campus newspaper probably ran several stories about the station over the years, if someone would take the time to look through their files. Edison 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough those appear to actually be true - those were relatively well sourced claims from a presentation by a Monash academic at a conference. (I found it amusing too. :)) Orderinchaos 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action please - the summary at the article is a bullet point with a link back to the page. It can not conceivably accomodate a merge. This would effectively delete any notable points from its forty year history, no appropriate reason for deleting it has been given. Comment: This process has once again seen important procedures ignored and it is left to sneering uncreators to cause significant harm to harmless and notable articles. Specious reasoning by editors, with the merest glance toward identifying notability, are often accompanied by a pattern of deletion and a pack mentality; seemingly as a substitute for actual improvements or in reaction to some past slight. This topic lacks contributors, not notability. Closing admins should note this: that one should not expect articles only from full time contributors, who are willing to educate any willfully ignorant 'voters' at AfD. If this article was on a commercial enterprise, or some ephemeral bit of television, its survival would be assured. Create, improve and merge when appropriate, deletion needs careful judgement and qualified views. Pardon my opinions, but this is unproductive! Fred ☻ 12:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete, nothing has changed since last time - this is still not a notable internet broadcaster. If there is resistance to its merger, then it should be deleted. Lankiveil 08:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/Delete per Lankiveil (couldn't have worded it better myself.) Orderinchaos 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as above. Perhaps a better merge target would be Monash Student Association rather than the university article though, as this "station" seems to be run primarily by that association. MichelleG 10:34, 22 July 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:NOT#DIRECTORY. Until (1 == 2) 07:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasters for 24 (TV series)

per Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (which specificly says Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). This article changes constantly (each country's entry changing perhaps once per year minimum), and can never become encyclopedic. edg ☺ ★ 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and changes to often. Oyster guitarist 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and oyster. --Golbez 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very slight merge into 24 (TV series)#International broadcasters with just the countries and networks, not the translated titles, the start dates, and especially not the day and time of broadcast. If that doesn't work for everyone, then as a second choice just delete it. --Metropolitan90 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to do this, why exclude the translated titles? / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90 and the WP:CSB policy for "worldwide view" for articles, as I'd imagine that including the international broadcasters list is pretty much the closest way for the article for 24 to have a "worldwide view". --Andrewlp1991 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't include a list of booksellers in Pakistan to buy Harry Potter, nor do we include what stores in Japan are best to buy a Wii from; why should we tell people where in Romania they can watch 24? No, this has nothing to do with a 'worldwide view'. --Golbez 04:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the ISBN function (try it!) links to booksellers throughout the world. But Wikipedia still is not TV Guide. / edg ☺ ★ 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia would be a TV guide only if the list were formatted like one; it would be an encyclopedic list if it, as Metropolitan90 just mentioned, simply included the countries & networks that ever aired the series and for which period of time, not including the day & tie of broadcast. But if not everyone agrees, as M said, then delete it. But the problem is, purging every "int'l broadcasters" section of every Wikipedia article of TV shows that have aired outside of their respective country would be a daunting task, given the number of TV shows that are broadcast worldwide. That was why I prefer merging, as it is proof that 24 is broadcast worldwide. It's the truth. In addition, the lists would require footnotes to ensure they are correct, otherwise "unsourced" info would be omitted. What's really more important here, making sure this article isn't a directory or that 24 meets WP:CSB? The points that M90 and I made will ensure that inclusion of such lists will meet both WP:NOT#DIR and WP:CSB. --Andrewlp1991 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how merging this information is a less daunting task than deleting it. And I'm not confident that detailed lists of every network that has ever run a TV show is worth including in the article for that show. (Tho Wikipedia does now seem to allow a lot more TV minutia than it did even a year ago.) / edg ☺ ★ 03:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information is nessecary. --SU182 11:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To whom? --Golbez 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this is the English Wikipedia, and English is spoken in many nations outside the United States and Canada, the two largest markets where 24 is broadcast, I suppose at least we could include the list of broadcasters at least for English-speaking countries. Just don't include the actual weekly broadcast times, or else this it'd be an electronic program guide. Also, please refer to WP:CSB. In the case of the article for Family Guy, which has also seen similar problem with its broadcasters' section, it had its broadcasters section watered down to "seen internationally". --Andrewlp1991 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally, when I want to know where to obtain media, Wikipedia is not the first place that comes to mind. --Golbez 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's been a lot of precedent for these lists to be deleted, I've seen several nomnated for deletion in the last ew months and I don't remember any of them surviving. Crazysuit 04:36, 23 July 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. Sr 13 07:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Radio

AfDs for this article:

non-noteable small ex-radio station Merkinsmum 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment article AfD was 'no concensus' over a year ago, but that was over whether the content could be verified. I believe it can be verified, but is non-noteable, only 83 google hits for 'forward radio' + stoke. Station's been non-existent another 18 months since then and hasn't been on air since 2003Merkinsmum 00:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the previous close was... odd. At any rate, the radio station is far from notable. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and closed Harlowraman 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and is an ex-redio station. Oyster guitarist 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of articles about defunct, low-watt radio stations. The station did actually exist--it's not like one of those mythical books that doesn't exist that we have to keep deleting from here. If we delete this radio station, I can find dozens more. Qworty 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable defunct radio station. *drew 09:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 02:15, 20 July 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. Sr 13 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The North Woods (Detroit)

No sources provided, and nothing readily apparent through Google searches of the web or news. It is unclear whether the term is even in common use, let alone whether there is enough material for an encyclopedic article. Looks to be rather nakedly biased regional boosterism. older ≠ wiser 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this deserves mention at all (and I don't think it does), it should be in the Detroit article or those of the relevant suburbs. Acroterion _(talk) 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've never heard this from any of my Detroit friends. A search indicates that the expected usage is the one meant in every result I've turned up, i.e., the more remote forested areas of Michigan known for hunting and outdoor recreation. Protologism on the make. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally mythical. Besides, who are they kidding? My Marin County is the richest county in the U.S. Qworty 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's mostly original research. The reliable information is contained in Oakland County, Michigan, although that article doesn't mention anything about the beautiful sceanery (sic), great dinning (sic), or the main center for sucsess (sic) in Michigan. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard this term used, though, it would be interesting article if this term existed in the metropolitan lexicon. --Criticalthinker 06:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and unsourced.--JForget 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any evidence that this is a common term in Detroit for the area the article is describing. --Oakshade 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Complete OR. No sources. --Loodog 20:58, 22 July 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.-Wafulz 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mirro

Mike Mirro is the non-notable drummer of a barely-notable band. Absent his connection to the group, he has no notability as an individual performer. At the moment, he's a local-only act in Chicago bars, and his former band Umphrey's McGee has moved to a different drummer. A Google test for "Michael Mirro" yields 548 results, most of which refer to an Illinois cardiologist. A similar test for "Mike Mirro" yields 743 results, the majority of which are album listings of his former band. This should be a delete/redirect. Consequentially 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. ugen64 02:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only sources are the band itself and MySpace, which are not reliable sources. I ^{(said) (did)} 04:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as member of a notable band. Bearian 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the band's article. It should be mentionned only in the history of the band--JForget 15:45, 22 July 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, obviously. Joke nomination by a new editor with only three mainspace edits. The other two were to attempt to nominate Brian Mulroney, a former Canadian Prime Minister, for deletion. Non admin closure, as there is no reason to drag this out. Resolute 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mazankowski

Non-notable and not high in the importance scale of Canadian politics Torontoyyy 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He is a former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada as stated in the article and supported by the external link to the Parliament of Canada website; clearly passes the "Politicians" section of WP:BIO cab 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Former deputy prime ministers would seem to be inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:53, 19 July 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. Sr 13 07:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Han-Tek, Inc.

Recreated after CSD. Fails WP:CORP. The company's only claim to notability is tenuous at best. There are no reliable sources for the firm, only press releases and the firm's own website.

According to this article (you'll have to judge its reliability on your own [84] there are over a quarter of a million firms with ISO:9000 worldwide. Its a certification. You meet their standards, pay for an audit and then keep paying for the audit once you get it. Is there any evidence that this is a remarkable feat? Have other material handling firms attempted to get certification and were denied? Montco 03:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this from one of the ISO governing bodies reports that there were over a half million firms at the end of 2001. Montco 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It was speedily deleted before, and after looking at the article it should be speedily deleted again. A small 50-person firm with ISO certification isn't notable. The fact that they "partner" with bigger firms isn't notable either. =Axlq 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other ways can you site an article, other than through the websites. Do you want citations from books and pages? I am just not sure how else you site an article that is this type. Secondly I don't understand why companies that do the exact same thing as Han-Tek are on Wikipedia but you are trying to delete Han-Tek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.225.137 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2007
- Note conflict of interest: IP address 24.39.225.137 resolves to mail.han-tek.com. This is the primary editor of the article, and possibly the creator User:HTStewart (who has edited only the Han-Tek, Inc. article).
- To the Han-Tek editor: Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also, we don't evaluate articles against other articles, we evaluate them on their own merits. Other articles that deserve deletion should be proposed for deletion. =Axlq 14:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patently failing WP:N and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 Pretty obvious vanispamtisement. Strongly recommend salting if this article is recreated. Blueboy 96 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that 24.39.225.137 (alias HTStewart) removed the AfD tag not long after weighing in here. [85] Both parties have been level-3 warned; good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy 96 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Blueboy96 --NeilN 14:01, 23 July 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. Sr 13 07:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Mayorov

This player is not yet notable. Is not playing at the highest level in the country nevermind in his sport. He is only currently a 4th round draft pick which is a long shot to become a notable player and is definitely not a top prospect. No different than the current standard of not creating articles for North American junior players until they have played pro. Djsasso 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hold off until he's done something to be considered notable. Just being drafted at all (i.e., not in the first round or so) is not a basis for notability. fuzzy510 05:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hockey Project article guidelines. Player is not yet notable. Pparazorback 05:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above reasons. Thricecube 08:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:HOCKEY guideline. *drew 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not yet notable, so do not salt. Bearian 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Even the article's source grades him a zero out of 10 as a prospect. Canuckle 00:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kaiser matias 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While he doesn't meet WikiProject Ice Hockey's notability standards, he does meet WP:BIO's standard by playing in a fully professional league (Vysshaya Liga), even if it isn't the highest league in the country. I'm not convinced a project's criteria should trump a Wikipedia guideline, at least in being more restrictive. On the other hand, it is a mostly unsourced stub article, and while I think it meets the notability guidelines, it does so by the skin of its teeth. - Fordan (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately the fully professional comment makes things a bit murky in Europe because kids can sign up and play in leagues run by the higher up clubs and are technically paid allowances to do so making them fully professional. Which would mean any kid signed up into one of these leagues would be wiki eligible. Which is one of the reasons the Wikiproject sought to create a more clear picture of what is notable and what is not. --Djsasso 04:10, 22 July 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. Sr 13 07:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthmover (band)

originally nominated for A7 speedy, author claims notability through having released an album with a notable label. No vote. ugen64 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSIC says at least two albums on a notable label. They seem to be one short. ~~(If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll change my vote).~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Darrenhusted 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. *drew 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven that they released two albums on notable labels. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google searches for the other labels turn up nothing of importance. Genet Records gets the most hits, but still I can't find any reliable sources on it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - do you think the other labels should be put up for deletion then? ugen64 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Lebioda

Missing an encyclopedic overview. Opinion, and a table. Alksub 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to establish even the existence of this person, let alone notability. Carom 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 02:14, 20 July 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 not passing notability criteria. Until (1 == 2) 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Block

I prodded this article some time ago (may 2006) and it was deleted. It was recreated soon after. I has no sources though there might be stuff in the links. There is nothing in the article which makes him notable though he is moderately accomplished. Jon513 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Jon513 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While Rabbi Block sounds like a real mensch, he doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article looks like it was copied and pasted from a press release about Rabbi Block. The extremely large number of red links is further indication to me that he's not notable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some of the links provided by רח"ק have convinced me that Rabbi Block is somewhat notable. He was included in a PBS chat-fest, he was interviewed by a local newspaper for commentary on the Israeli elections, etc. (I didn't read all the articles.) It's a close call, but I think Rabbi Block is sufficiently notable — but I advised רח"ק to incorporate those sources into the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try googling him? See these links: [86][87][88]רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Google hits seem to be copies of his Wikipedia article or the web sites of organizations with which he is affiliated, but take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS and read my comment below. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm torn. It seems he has influence in his kiruv circles, but I'm not certain that is enough. I don't see that he is anymore notable than a minister or rabbi from any good sized local congregation. Perhaps that is notable enough though. The article needs to be sourced quickly however, or it should be deleted simply on BLP grounds. My opinion comes down like this - If the spiritual leader of a congregation of 500 belongs on wikipedia, so doe R. Block, but only if we can get some sourced info. Basejumper 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult to find sources concerning Rabbi Block on the internet itself because most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet and prohibit or at least discourage its usage. Just as it is difficult to find any information on the internet about any leading Orthodox Rabbi, for example there are only three hits on Google for Rabbi Shaul Brus, Rabbi Eli Chaim Swerdloff, Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Bick, and other prominent leaders of Orthodoxy. You are welcome to search through the Google results on Zvi Block and source parts of the article on him. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to establish Rabbi Block's notability don't have to be on the internet. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not satisfied that this guy has received "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Strong Delete Reviewing the comments here by others I have decided its a good delete case due to notibility. The point made for keeping was, "most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet," hence the lack of currently available sources. This is true, however, most religious Zionists Orthodox use internet extensively, and Aish HaTorah kiruv workers use it extensively too. Seeing that this man is both, yet his presence on the internet is sparce has led to believe he probably is not notable to those outside his immediate circle of contact. (I stand by my statement about a church or synagogue leader of 500. If that deserves an article, I say keep) Basejumper 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep awaiting further sources--its not leading a synagogue that makes one notable, but what one does there, and the involvement with a number of significant activities together is what gives the notability in his case. But it would be good to have independent sources to show it. DGG (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx and Malik Shabazz, it has been deleted before, and his circle of Orthodox do use the internet. --Jayrav 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is unfair to make assumptions about his circle of Orthodox. I can tell you right now, that four-fifths of his students and congregants do NOT use the internet. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just spent the past hour or so analyzing the first 150 Google search results on RZB's name. See User:Rachack/Zvi Block/Links for my analysis. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they're all trivial mentions about him. To count for notability, an article from a reliable source has to be about him or mention him significantly. I dont think any of the links do that. Corpx 07:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, The Jewish News Weekly, Google News, and Google Books do not count as reliable sources? רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 09:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but the coverage they give him is trivial Corpx 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have skimmed though a good chunk of the links provided by Rachack. A few quotes in the paper in an article about something else is trivial. It is not the same and an article or book or something about him. Look at the article itself. Still even with all those links the vast majority of the article is still unsourced! I stand by my nomination. Jon513 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links actually prove that he is NN. Thye are no article ABOUT him or things that he has written. And anyone, rabbi, yoga teacher, or marketing specialist, who gives weekly classes has 100's of anouncements. The mentions of him are trivial. --Jayrav 12:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)There also seems to be a strong COI since Rachack is Block's web designer and seeming publicist. --Jayrav 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayrav should provide evidence of his COI comment, and if it is true, I suggest a warning to the accused user and maybe maybe a temporary block of a week or a month. It seems that wikipedia Project Judaism has more than its share of COI problems, adverts, and POV pushing individuals and gangs. A consequence might cut down on such things. OTOH, if the charge is not true, it should definitely be removed as it could have negative consequences on the accused user in the future. (IE. People bringing up the false charge everytime he writes an article.) If the charge is false, I would suggest a temporary block on the accuser for incivility. These are just my suggestions, and I'm not an administrator so take 'em or leave 'em. Basejumper 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already declared my interest in this subject many times, but I feel that from a NPOV I am merely trying to establish his notability. The notability of RZB has already been establish in the previous afd for this article, although that discussion seems to have disappeared from the wiki, this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#NN_rabbis reflects that former discussion. Notice, how I have never stated that I feel this article should be kept, I am merely commenting on some editor's assumptions that RZB is NN.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Block Beis Medrash webpage- "This page is powered by Blogger and was designed by Reuven Chaim Klein of Klein Web Designs." From the designers homepage and link on his wiki homepage - "Rachack (רח"ק) is the abbreviation of my Hebrew name, Reuven Chaim Klein (ראובּן חיים ק ליין)" --Jayrav 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never denied that I have a COI. But remember Jayrav, over a year ago you asked crzrussian's opinion on the matter and remember what he said?רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he did declare his interest than there's no improper coi, but i encourage people to declkare interest often. most edit wars on wikipedia and esp. wikproject judaism happen because of coi problems. Basejumper 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

רח"ק, the notability of this article has NOT "already been establish in the previous afd"; there was no former AFD. I placed a {{prod}} tag on it (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion) meaning that the article will be deleted unless anyone objects. It stayed there uncontested for five days, it was then deleted see logs). You later recreated it - which was allow (unlike articles that have gone through AFD, the recreation of a prodded article is like contesting its deletion and is permitted). Now we are discussing - for the first time in an AFD - the notability of the article . Jon513 10:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I though it was afd'ed before because I seem to remember there being a discussion about it. I guess I was wrong or it must have been an unofficial discussion. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the data and current WP policies, the subject doesn't pass the notability crtiera. HG | Talk 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per רח"ק, multiple Google searches and multiple newpaper articles establish notability.--Yeshivish 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether he is mentioned, but if he is featured or the subject of the article. If the mentions are not enough to give him a reasonably sized article that is not on violation of BLP rules (meaning nothing unsourced) he is not notable enough for an article. Basejumper 22:04, 24 July 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.