Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 26

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Tranche (software)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

Replying in your paragraph order:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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 =)

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)

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)

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)

• Relisted to determine a clear consensus. -- John Reaves 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)
• Keep. Meets WP:N due to coverage here and here (Nature subscription required). JulesH 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First Family Reunion

First Family Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Reads more like a vanity page. Also, the article's content is suspect; there is no such organization called "United States of Family Services" according to Google. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I call WP:BOLLOCKS - on account that it redlinks to an agency whose only link to existence, according to Google, is in... guess what, this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vanity (spam) with serious notability issues to boot. wow. Pharmboy 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N, probably a hoax anyway. Asserts notability, so hard to call it speedy eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. If the content of this article were verifiable, it would merit being merged into Family reunion rather than being a separate article. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources supporting these (dubious) claims of notability. NawlinWiki 19:45, 27 July 2007 *(UTC)
• Delete - not even clear if its asserting to be the "first" (i.e. original) vs. the "First" family, etc.Cander0000 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Vanity or hoax. Bearian 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete complete nonscence one paragraph and that does not make sence which is about some thing completely made up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Amish episode

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

WP:NOR. If this is a notable and known phenomenon in American and Canadian series then sources describing it would be easy to find, but when an article has statements like, Presumably, this is because the Amish represent an "exotic" culture, that usually means it's just original research. Saikokira 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, pure OR. --Eyrian 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Loose connections all over. Title of article not clear on article's content, but that is easy to change - though, not enough to keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree original research. Pharmboy 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR, WP:NFT, and WP:NEO. The use of technology rejectionists is a longstanding trope in speculative fiction but doesn't really have a name that I've heard of. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above, especially Dhartung. The title seems like the topic of a panel at a Con. Bearian 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. J-stan ^Talk 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete: Circumventing a block is inherently a disruptive edit (vandalism, WP:CSD#G3), and the original editor was blocked by another administrator as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The AnimeLand

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

The article provides no reliable sources for ever expanding claims. For a show that has premiered yet, there's an astounding amount of trivia, even talking about its second season. It is just over-the-top enough that I suspect it may be a hoax, or at worst, original research. It also makes no claims about what network it will air on. Therefore, it is a television show that does not assert notability and cannot be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as nonsense. I found nothing on Google to corroborate the article's claims, and Cartoon Network's website has absolutely nothing on it. Complete and utter balls. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is, the article is cohesive enough that it doesn't qualify as patent nonsense, so it's not eligible for speedy under G1. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and block creator; this article has been deleted once before and the creator is a sock of banned user Danny Daniel. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the pattern for the sockpuppet accusations, and the article is not eligible for speedy under G4, since it wasn't deletion by AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then again, another admin blocked him as a sockpuppet, so the article is vandalism by definiton. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy Capp glossary

Andy Capp glossary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. Other gloassaries exist, but they are for words specific to the topic. Most if the words here are in common everyday use. This is the same as having a Calvin and Hobbes glossary and including translations like In the United States they refer to autumn as "fall". Saikokira 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a, uh, comic book's dialect dictionary. --Haemo 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. It seems the article could be salvaged somehow, as Andy Capp is certainly notable, and the content adds context to the Comic itself. It is more than just a list in this context, and the article explains this and why the terms are important. As they are not "real" definitions, I can't buy the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" arguement, however, since purpose isn't to give 'real' definitions but to explain the words used. Change name to anything besides "glossary" though. Pharmboy 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We already have dozens of CockneyMiscellaneous Britspeak-American dictionaries out there, this one doesn't need to exist. The tie to Andy Capp is especially shaky, seeing as he's not the only one who talks that way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. What is all this about cockney slang? Andy is a Georgie - quite different. --Bduke 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• My bad. I'm a Yank, so what do I know about Brit slang? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Smythe heavily watered down the NE dialect. The strip had to appeal to a generic working class readership, so the majority of it is generic 1950s colloquial English. Gordonofcartoon 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:DICT is very clear about "slang, jargon, or usage guides". It's also probably original research in producing a novel synthesis of material from Andy Capp and dictionaries. Plus, as TenPoundHammer says, very little of it is unique to Andy Capp. Gordonofcartoon 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete inferring definitions from the usage of words would be WP:OR Corpx 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Haemo - I'll defend genuinely encyclopedic glossary list articles to the death, since MoS explicitly recognizes them as valid, at WP:SAL, but cor blimey, this innit one of'm, mate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, I haven't seen Andy Capp in years. I enjoyed the article, and appreciate that the author has written it very well. However, I tend to agree that we shouldn't have an article about terms used in a particular comic strip. Part of the fun of Andy Capp was that, growing up, I had to figure out what the slang words meant by reading them in context. The same can be said of Snuffy Smith, the Appalachian counterpart to Mr. Capp (speaking of which, there used to be some mixup on the names of Andy Capp and Li'l Abner creator Al Capp). My point is that fans of the strip don't need the article; persons who are not fans won't read the article. Consider adding to the existing Andy Capp article for some of the more obscure terms. But no merge, by any means. Andy would be the first to say "'up it!" if Flo brought a bloomin' dictionary into his world. Mandsford 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Otto4711 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As far as I can tell, none of this seems to be truly specific to Andy Capp: it's mostly just common UK slang, and in some cases not even that (carry on? dustbin? shocking?). While this is clearly a good-faith contribution that the creator put a lot of effort into, the underlying thinking is just misguided. Think about it: the word "rad" was used on the sitcom Full House, but does that mean there should be a "Glossary of Full House"? No, because it's a common and widely-used slang term which is neither exclusive to Full House nor originated there, just as "dustbin" is far from exclusive to Andy Capp. If any of the included words are exclusive to Andy Capp (and I don't see any) they should be merged into the main article. Finally, extremely vague sourcing like "Andy Capp strips, 1957-1985." is not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DICT, WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blast Arena Advance

Blast Arena Advance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Homebrew game, not even a slight hint of notability ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of the sources are any good, completely non-notable. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - though I don't like to do so because I know the creator through IRC... but it doesn't meet notability guidelines --Darksun 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTE and the analysis put forth by Corpx. --Aarktica 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

25 Must See Bollywood Movies

25 Must See Bollywood Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I was going to tag this as a speedy for obvious copyvio (the article it's copied from says Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited.) but the last time I tagged a list like this as CSD G12, the tag was removed by someone who said lists aren't copyrightable. Either way, it's a non-notable list. We shouldn't start creating articles about articles if they're NN. Saikokira 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - "Must See" is hardly encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, opinion piece as original research (this can't be 'objective') or infringing, and a list can't be copyrighted but any analysis or opinion with it, or the actual compilation itself can be. Pharmboy 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to make a copy of a list made by somebody else, when that's all there is to talk about it Corpx 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is only about somebody's favourite movies, and does not show any notability why this article should be kept. RaNdOm26 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree it is somebody's favourite films not encyclopedic and an opinion. Harlowraman 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete because of copyright violation and POV. Sadly, this is a boring list of titles with no explanation about why one "must see" any of these films. If we were to change one letter, it would be obvious why a list with the title of "25 Must See Hollywood Movies" would need to be deleted. As the article itself indicates, there are non-POV articles including List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets. Mandsford 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, especially nom, Pharmboy, Corpx, and Mandsford. Bearian 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete – this is, no doubt, a highly controversial article - and this closure, no doubt, highly controversial as a result. Many users have put forward many arguments, some with more basis than others, and so I wouldn't feel secure closing this as a "No Consensus". First off, the numbers: I've tried very hard not to tot up a tally of Keep v. Delete !votes, and I'm quite proud not to have; however, just for the record - I get the general feeling that it's neck and neck.

However, having scrutinised the debate, the comments and the !votes, I have come to the conclusion that the Wikipedians who have pushed for "Delete" have presented the more thorough argument: not only have they put forward several key policy points - the article is Original Research, it's a Content Fork, it doesn't adhere to a NPOV - they also make more sense: this does read like a college essay that somebody has transferred to Wikipedia; and, I must admit it is a little creepy. As a result of the overall more impressive, influential and more sensible argument put forward by those !voting "Delete", I'm deleting this article as a result of what I interpret to be the Consensus established and expressed in this debate. Anthøny 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film

Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First off, this article is filled with listcruft. Second, I don't think this is a discriminate and notable encyclopedic topic. Every type of human relationship possible has been exhibited in film and literature, and a list compiling examples for each one is unnecessary, and may give undue weight to the importance of that relationship in fiction. What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction? The bottom line is: this article is a POV fork, WP:SYN original research intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys. Disturbing, to say the least. Any factually accurate citations and conclusions it might possibly include are better discussed under the general friendship article. Why is it so important that it be between men and male children? General subject matter aside, why only positive relationships? VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• This definitely reads like an essay, but I don't agree with the listcruft assessment. I think maybe, if someone could go through this with a fine-toothed comb you might be able to prune a good article out of it. Right now, though, it smacks of a well-sourced college essay that someone added to Wikipedia. --Haemo 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - POV OR etc. Also, this article would encourage a {{Negative friendships between men and boys in literature and film}}. Wouldn't that be fun! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; disturbingly well-sourced but still indiscriminate and highly POV list which risks both violating WP:BEANS and inspiring press accounts such as this. Heather 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In my opinion, the primary reason for the existence of this article is some kind of pedophile/NAMBLA sub-text. There are a few articles like this, such as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films, which primarily exists as a guide for pedophiles to know what movies they might wan to watch. I'm probably just being cynical, I'm sure the edit histories of the editors of these types of articles will show they work on a whole range of articles, not just the pedophile-interest ones. I hope I don't offend any NAMBLA members. Saikokira 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The actual article talks about other friendships as well, not just men/boys --perhaps it should be retitled to show the broader subject. I think there is good material there, but it needs more careful organization. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree that POV and OR are issues, and think nothing good can possibly come from it. Pharmboy 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conflicted keep - I looked at this article the other day and had the "NAMBLA flash" about it, but I feel that an examination of this sort of relationship does have some encyclopedic value assuming that it's based on reliable secondary sources. There is a danger of POV pushing here (although the NAMBLA talk in this discussion strikes me as more than a little gratuitous) but rather than deletion the concerns with this article should be thrashed out on the talk page. Otto4711 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not nominating this for deletion because it simply needs work. Several of the sections are decently written and most of it is properly sourced. The subject as a whole is not worthy of encyclopedic treatment in a separate article, as the article is patently original research in that it compiles sources and information to make a case for the importance of the subject. It's also a blatant POV fork. It's a slightly impressive effort, but it's still fundamentally not neutral and never could be by it's very scope and definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete At the risk of seeming WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm inclined to agree with nom. It's one of "those" articles where it has no glaring faults, but walks a fine line between relevance and irrelevance, while being neither abjectly harmful nor obviously useful...ultimately though, I think the higher standard should prevail. Maybe the user would care to userspace it. Bullzeye ^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, as well. I've had issues about this article since I first saw it linked to The Cider House Rules. It does read like a college essay, and the subject seems to be far too broad to be truly encyclopedic, and although it seems to be referenced, I have problems with the subjectivity of the subject matter, as I voiced on the talk page a while back. Who is to say what relationships are positive? Why is this academic? IS it academic? It may be construed as irrelevant and WP:OR. The creator of the article obviously is very passionate about this subject (and others: see Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) and other associated articles), but, you know. Squick. María (críticame) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well I would say that, wouldn't I, having compiled the article. The NAMBLA references above are pretty insulting, but otherwise your comments are measured. 'Negative' friendships are well documented and I've contributed many of them and this article adds balance. It allows anyone searching the encyclopaedia to access learned papers etc. I created a new article as I couldn't see that it fits within other articles. I used the word 'positive' because otherwise I suspected it would be interpreted as dodgy. You won't find a single friendship referenced that is even remotely sexual. As for relevance, I don't how many of you specialise in this field. Single parent families are very common now and it is usually the adult male that is absent. A lack of a positive male role model is shown to contribute to many problems, but men are put off. They don't want to be the target of unjust comments like some on this page. Happy to work on it more, but please don't just delete it.Tony 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
• Comment Tony, it's not just that the article is vaguely creepy. If it is so innocuous, why does the intro work so hard to say it's not sexual, and then go on to stumble about quite blatantly advocating for the importance of non-familial adult male friends for boys? It's that, just like your above comments about modern familial relations and male role models, you are creating synthesis original research in compiling the article. Not only that, but the article is clearly a POV fork. The article's very topic of conversation, as defined by it's title and introduction, are POV. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit until its acceptable. The tone does suggest a hidden agenda, frankly--the reader does think, well, why is this particular example here? I don't think its OR, but a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable, with the implication unstated. However, it is true that many types of such relationships are in fact acceptable in western societies, (and additional ones elsewhere) and like many other relationships of all sorts there is often or perhaps always some psychosexual component. So there is something to write about. An honest discussion--in the article--of possible use by different agendas might clear the air. I hold to the principle that there is nothing about which an objective article is impossible. DGG (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A "a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable" is not a encyclopedic article on a topic, it's an original research essay topic. Wikipedia is a compilation of what other reliable sources say, and there are no reliable sources expressly and solely dealing with "positive relationships between men and boys in literature and film". There are sources dealing with both components separately, but none synthesizing the two. That's an original research subject, plain and simple. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because the probable hidden agenda makes it improbable that neutrality will be consistently present. Golfcam 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well sourced, and is a nice counterpoint to the plethora of Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in *** articles which presently festoon Wikipedia. If they aren't deletion fodder, then neither is this. It contains quite a bit of well-sourced information, and I'd be reluctant to destroy this much of anyone's hard work, no matter what the topic. Hermitian 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately, articles with a specific point of view to counterpoint another point of view are called POV forks, and are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment NPOV can be violated when individual articles on a subject are balanced, but by their disproportionate number compared to those on similar topics give a particular subject undue emphasis within Wikipedia. This problem can be eliminated by decreasing the number of articles on the overrepresented subject, or increasing the number of articles on similar subjects, and does not imply that the individual articles themselves lack NPOV or are biased. Hermitian 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So let me get this, you're saying Wikipedia needs more positive coverage of pedophilia? First off, the articles in Wikipedia on pedophilia are not biased against pedophilia. It so happens that you may feel this way, but 99% of reliable sources confirm the fact that pedophilia is a violation of both human ethics and laws on every level. This is what the sources say. But despite all that, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for keep.VanTucky ^(talk) 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Pedophilia is simply the condition, on the part of an adult, of being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Last I looked, feelings were neither crimes, nor violations of human ethics. Juxtoposing "pedophilia" with "child sexual abuse" in a plethora of article titles is about as POV as you can get. It's like associating "hair color" with "mortgage fraud." It's attempting to create an association in the mind of the reader while cleverly evading the obligation to support that association with facts. It's called "building your conclusions into your definitions," and is a typical tactic of those flogging the Sex Abuse Agenda, who must continually resort to flim-flam and anecdote, because they don't have facts on their side. Hermitian 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll just let that little rant on the woes of the poor, victimized pedophiles speak for itself. I don't want to continue this, as we're veering off into general discussion. If you have a beef with other articles, bring it up there. But other articles being biased is not a reason relevant to this article's deletion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)\
        • You've just made my point for me. Whenever a balanced article on this sort of subject appears, it attracts vigilante editors who fume and spew and say "NAMBLA" in every other sentence, and talk about "pedophiles" with venom dripping from their fangs as they type. Of course, these people protect the negative and biased articles, which pander to popular misconception, and cleverly lie by innuendo, juxtoposition, and omission. That is why Wikipedia has endless "pedophilia and child sexual abuse in ..." articles, and all attempts to get even the sillier ones deleted fail. On any topic remotely related to any kind of relationship between legal adults and legal minors, Wikipedia has about the same accuracy as a "special episode" of Oprah. Hermitian 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons stated above. --David Shankbone 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of original synthesis and a POV-fork to boot.-Wafulz 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and many of the other points raised above. --AliceJMarkham 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Well-crafted, but nevertheless an effort to push POV through WP:SYN and manipulation of the list qualification conditions. From the article, "This article includes intimate relationships, but excludes relationships where there are any sexual feelings involved...." This doesn't work. Inclusion on this qualification would require reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is positive and reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is absent sexual connotation. Good luck with that. Likewise, the inclusion conditions exclude child sexual abuse "whether or not the relationship was seen to be positive" but the list includes other criminal relationships that are perceived as positive (Martin's Day, especially). And, needless to say, almost all of the prose passages, while well-sources, are simply unrelated content in an effort to reinforce the subtle POV attempts. Nothing in the "Research into adult/child relationships" mentions or relates to film and literature. There is nothing to salvage here. Serpent's Choice 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is the proverbial road paved with good intentions. Tony, you've obviously researched your topic quite well, but I think you'd better save this one to your hard drive because it's going to be deleted. I would vote to delete for many of the reasons listed above. You are a scholar, but there is room for adding to your vocabulary; and as with many scholars, you fail to consider common sense. Intelligence, education and wisdom are different qualities, and the third is a combination of the first two, along with experience. You should be aware that society, with good reason, is extremely sensitive to "friendships between men and boys", second only to a friendship between a male adult and a female child. Vocabulary is more important in writing on a controversial subject, than on an unemotional subject. Perhaps in taking down the article and rewriting it, you should consider other literature and film about mentoring; review (Google book, for example) other writing about the subject; and not confine this to "men and boys". Good luck to you, and learn from the constructive criticism offered by all of the persons in this discussion. Mandsford 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not just because of the obvious bias of whoever wrote it, but because even if if it didn't have a hidden agenda and the fact that much of the article bears no relation whatsoever to the title, I cannot for the life of me fathom why this should be an article at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. I don't think, though, that the bias of the first editor of an article should be a reason for deleting it. Biases are OK at Wikiversity, by the way. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate place for this, with links to Wikipedia anyway. A.Z. 19:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My reason for nominating this for deletion has nothing to do with the intentions of the author, I hardly know Tony on Wikipedia and to try and speak to his intentions would be inappropriate. The reason this should be deleted is because the subject as defined by the article's title and introduction is inherently biased, and no amount of different authorship could change that. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for explaining that. I still don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. A.Z. 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was about to type delete, but I actually read the article. It's not just listcruft or an essay, but as of now it is very well sourced and written, useful for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it needs re-naming. I don't questions motives or agendas. Bearian 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's certainly interesting, and useful, and I would like to be able to read it somewhere. The encyclopedic factor makes me wonder, though. Could you elaborate on its usefulness for an encyclopedia? A.Z. 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have also reviewed the article as changes have been made, and I still feel my nomination holds. It's still a POV fork, includes self-referential material (just like an essay) that seems disingenuous as to the article's intent, is comprised of sources solely dealing with either works of fiction or non-familial man-boy relationships, and none combining the two into a single encyclopedic subject worthy of such extensive coverage. So it's still WP:SYN. I also never said the article was listcruft, only that it included it. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a consensus could be expedited here if the nom could substantiate some of the things he claims about the article. Why is it a POV fork and what POV is it a fork of? Why does he feel it is "disturbing," "disingenuous," and "blatant?" Why can't we just rename it to something less flame-baity and keep it? Hermitian 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• First of all, as this discussion stands the majority consensus is that it should be deleted. Not a single voice in support of keep has referred to any policies definitively supporting the retention of the the article, and several have expressed that they are conflicted about keeping the article because of its distasteful tone and content. There are a few dissenting voices, but they are in the minority on this. But disregarding that, I'd be happy to go into more detail. It is a POV fork because it represents only a positive viewpoint on non-familial relationships between adult men and male children. This does not encompass all viewpoints and facts on the subject, and as such is a violation of WP:NPOV. Second, a simple rename is not acceptable because this is synthesis original research, and even if it were inclusive of all viewpoints it would still be OR. No reliable, published sources actually speak significantly and solely on the depiction of non-familial relations between men and boys, either positively or negatively. There are plenty of sources about the relationships, about the development of adolescents (once referring to film, but not referring to adult-child relationships), and of course plenty of sources confirming that the instances of this particular depiction exist. But none of those go into encylopedic discussion about the topic specifically or prove that positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film is a notable and independent subject. The article takes sources that are peripherally related to one factor or another of the topic as a whole, and combines them to create an academic-style treatment. This is unacceptable, as Wikipedia only reports on topics that other people cover significantly, rather than using sources to create our own topics. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• So change the title to something like "Cinematic Depictions of Male Mentoring Relationships." It seems to me you're trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer here, and the pile-on talking about pedophiles and NAMBLA seems like the typical treatment anything suspected of "sending the wrong message" in the Great Culture War receives on Wikipedia, regardless of its factual accuracy. I'd also like to point out that consensus isn't a majority vote. Consensus is the lack of reasonable objections to the proposed plan. Hermitian 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would call no references to policy in support of keep unreasonable, though the attitudes of those in favor certainly have been reasoned. I did not bring up NAMBLA or pedophiles in my nomination, this was brought up by others and I will not speak for them. I think likening the article to a bad faith campaign by anyone is both uncivil and untrue. What did mention is that the content and self-referential material about child sex abuse in the introduction made me very uncomfortable, and certainly confuses the intentions and subject matter of the article (not the author). As to the rename, again I'll reiterate my point. The POV fork status is just adding insult to injury for this article. Fixing the POV treatment of the subject would not alter the fact that the subject is not covered by any reliable, published sources but has been created by combining sources. And as a side note, it wouldn't just have to be rename, but a complete rewrite of the article to make it NPOV. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would imagine your POV fork argument vanishes if we put "Mentoring" or some similar term in the title, as such relationships are by definition positive, and the term is well defined and inclusive, and it can no longer be argued that only a subset of some larger topic is being selectively presented. I'd be surprised if no one we can use as a source has ever looked at the subject, and in any case, the arguments you are advancing never seem to get applied to the neverending series of "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in <Some Obscure Topic>" articles which are certainly a canonical example of WP:SYN, listcruft, and original research. The article is well-written, well-sourced, and a quite comprehensive and well thought out treatment of its subject matter, and I think the bar for deletion needs to be at the "high" setting because of this. Hermitian 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I made the change. Now we see whether the argument will vanish. A.Z. 01:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has enough issues that we can go in circles repeating the same arguements until Godwin's Law finally ends it. If there were no taboo, the article wouldn't exist from a lack of interest. IMO, a consensus has been reached. That the content is controversial and hits a lot of nerves doesn't change this. Pharmboy 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again Herm, I'll ask you to keep complaints about other articles out of this discussion. I'm glad the article is no longer titled in a POV way. But this does not make the fact that none of its sources are about the depiction of this type of relationship in film and literature. There are sources about adolescent developement, and sources confirming that the films actually contain what the articles says they do. But none of the sources significantly or solely discuss the depiction of relationships between men and boys in fiction. It's not just about the number of sources and their reliability, it's that they do not treat the subject of the article. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, I would say that the article needs major rewriting, not deletion. A.Z. 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No the article needs to be deleted if no reliable, published sources treat it. Not rewritten. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • What if this were called "List of movies that depict mentoring relationships between adults and children"? A.Z. 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not about the name, it's about the subject matter. If it was just a list of movies and books depicting mentoring relationships between adults and children, then it would be trivia and listcruft, and probably deleted swiftly. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • What would differ it from the List of sexually active popes? A.Z. 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS All of this is fine, except I fail to see relevance. Again, I think we all can easily see how each other feels about the article, and no amount of further discussion is going to change anyone's mind about it. If there is no hope to learn, pursued or change your mind, then it isn't a discussion, it is just an arguement. Again, I feel a consensus has been reached and a small minority of very vocal individuals disagree, and any further debate will not produce a different outcome. Pharmboy 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• (unindent) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. You might familiarize yourself with the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as these are all considered to be fraudulent arguments by the community consensus. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have an opinion nor an argument, I only asked a question. A.Z. 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment If those who have used such an ingenious variety of arguments for deleting the article had spent the same effort in improving it, perhaps it would have served more to improve the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Since most of us don't think the subject itself is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, that comment doesn't particular jibe with most of us, if I may speak for the Deleters. --David Shankbone 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• You hit it on the head David. Forgive the vulgarity, but you can't polish a turd. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just being offensive VanTucky. And you the one who aspires to Wiki standards by your comments above.Tony 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

First off, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Tony. But negative comments about contributions and articles are not forbidden under any policy in Wikipedia. Personal attacks, directed at and about a particular individual are strictly forbidden. But I did not call you, or your contributions in particular, a "turd", I called an article that. And there is no policy that even discourages me from being critical of articles. You are not the only contributor to the article I was critical of. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been expressed forbidden on Wikipedia from the start. It violates two of the three core polices. It violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it is an essay which is looking for and promoting a positive relationship between men and boys, even with the recent name change; and it violates Wikipedia:No original research as it is an original essay created by the author, sustained by his own original research. The subject of the essay is Interpersonal relationship - which is already dealt with. Wiki is not the place for people's individual views and research - no matter how well done. If the author publishes a book on the subject, and it becomes notable, it may be quoted or used as a source in Interpersonal relationship, but even then it wouldn't warrant an article to itself. SilkTork 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I read above that another user said this article was vaguely creepy. I got the same impression. I'm sure this was not Tony's attention. I know someone above also pointed out that the article went out of its way to show that these were stories about positive mentors not perverted old men. I think this is probably what kind of gives it that sort of creepy feeling. I would have to say I would not delete it yet, it is well written and sourced. I would suggest shorting it a bit. I think that maybe if all of us that are uncomfortable about certain aspects of the article could point out what they are that this could be a good article. I would say give Tony a little more time, I know it feels to have things that you have worked on brought up for deletion. Jmm6f488 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some user's feelings about the content are not the reason it should be deleted. Please read the above comments about the article's nature as synthesis original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• CommentI did, VanTucky you are right the whole need for this article is a little iffy. Maybe some of the content could be added to another article. Jmm6f488 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and thrash out on the talk page, per Otto and DGG. This is, at its core, a valid and encyclopedic topic. VanTucky is write that there is potential for POV and OR, but I'm not sure that this is overwhelming, or even particularly problematic with the article as it stands. It still needs a better title, but the existence of many of the sources, such as "Relationships with Non-Parental Adults and Child Behavior" or "Men and Child Protection: Developing New Kinds of Relationships Between Men and Children," I think clearly attest to the validity of this topic. --JayHenry 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Several editors seem to have mistaken what I am saying. I am not saying that the article simply has original research in it. I am saying, that since not a single reliable source directly addresses the topic in entirety, that the subject itself is synthesis original research. It's about being a fundamentally unsuitable topic for discussion on Wikipedia, as it is not addressed by reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think I get what you are saying. Basically if the article could quote so and so's research paper Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film, etc and bring the topic together as a whole it would be exceptable. But as it stands now it seems to be just a loosely constructed category? If this is what you mean than I would agree it needs something to tie it together as a topic. Jmm6f488 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much what I mean. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just another list of trivia in disguise and violates our five pillars. Burntsauce 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, SqueakBox 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is an essay, at least borderline original research, clearly synthesis of other sources, and not an encyclopedia article or topic. And the potential that it's a gateway for inappropriate pedophillic content is disturbing. The combination of the issues makes it clear to me... Georgewilliamherbert 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't follow nominator's reasoning. VanTucky appears to be oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism. The sex abuse scandals involving the Catholic priesthood more or less at large, and other cases, may suggest that there really is something to these assertions that there is something very wrong with men. My point is not to discuss that issue, only to comment on the nominator's argument: "What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? " The current subject is obviously not random and in the context of the vilification of men in general vis-à-vis boys, this article attempts to point to some sources for the perspective where these relationships are not predatory. This may of course be done in a POV or NPOV fashion. I don't see a problem with the article in that respect. The nominator also states: "What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction?" I do not understand what is meant by that. I see no problems with the introduction as such. Further the assertion that the article is "intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys" may or may not be true – I find no reason to try and guess Tony Sandel's motivation since we are judging the article on it's own merits, not based on the intents of its creator. __meco 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First off, you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not here to prove any point, or bring awareness to any factor of any issue. A WP:POINT argument for keep is not acceptable under any circumstances. Your ranting assertion about how I am "oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism" is not a reason that this article should be kept per Wikipedia's policy. In fact, the idea that this article should stay to counteract any other idea is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Articles do not, or at least should not, exist to prove any point. They exist to be an encyclopedic resource recounting the facts about a subject as verified in reliable, published sources. And as no reliable sources directly cover "positive relationships between men and boys in film and literature", the topic as covered in the article is synthesis original research. By self-referential material, I meant the extensive phrases in which the article talks about itself. Phrases revolving around "This article is/is not..." are not encyclopedic content. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Air Conditioning Beads

Air Conditioning Beads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Google turns up nothing on "Air conditioning beads". Possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Oli Filth 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doesn't make much sense to boot. Pharmboy 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe a speedy as nonsense. Searching for the term only brings up something about beads of sweat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Beads, tiny ones, made of something or other, that catch more beads, unless they shoot out at 80 mph. Then some stuff about refrigerant. Nonsense. Acroterion _(talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete This has all the features of a hoax. Dbrugler, who created the article on Thursday, no longer has a Useraccount. The article has zero sources. Finally, it's about a subject almost nobody would notice except for the person who created it and regularly comes back to the scene of the crime. My hats off to TenPound for spotting this one so quickly. Mandsford 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Christopher Johnson

Matthew Christopher Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable child snowboarder. Winning youth competitions does not make one notable. Oli Filth 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete agree. wikipedia already has too many child 'future stars' articles that also need deleting. Pharmboy 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• dont delete I've heard of matt before and i dont think hes just a future child star he already has a career in snowboarding and though some people dont think thats important i think it should be here so people who want to read about him can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnwhiles (talk • contribs).

— Johnwhiles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

please sign your comments, and dont write in front of another signature, so it appears I wrote your article. Pharmboy 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. How precisely have you heard of the subject's snowboarding prowess when there's not a single relevent Google hit? Single purpose account, both edits on this AfD...I smell WP:MEAT. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Career in snowboarding" does not equal "notable". Especially not without Reliable sources. Oli Filth 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of the sources are rather old and would not bear out the claims of sponsorship. Absence of Google hits corroborates the unverifiability. Further, I'm suspicious that his first win was the "Carol Games," given that his mother's name is Carol. I'm still assuming good faith, but I don't think there's a case for notability here under WP:BIO—certainly not any case backed up with reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I dont know much about this kid but i know theres a snowboarding competition called the carol games, its a rather small competition but its deffently possible that he won the 3 medals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioman779 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 July 2007 — Ohioman779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE/DONT DELETE??Matt is my boyfriends brother. I read everything written and im pretty sure its all true, but i dont think he wants somthing on wikipedia written about him that he hasnt seen.. especially that its written by someone he mostly likley doesnt know. even though the information is true, i think matt should be informed about what it says before its kept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdobelle88 (talk • contribs). — Mdobelle88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't think he has any more say than anyone else about that, as long as the article isn't defamitory. Autobiographies aren't allowed, so anything that would ever be allowed would have to be written without his consent, again, as long as it wasn't false, etc. Pharmboy 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While it gets a bit confusing due to an older skier named Matthew Johnson from Alaska, I'm not finding much in Google. I can't even find the companies that are supposedly sponsoring him. Trivia section is suggestive of a joke article. Fail to see Notability. - Fordan (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5 (created by blocked user), a7 (nonnotable), g10 (attack -- based on prior deleted edits). NawlinWiki 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom mcnee

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

Seems to be a hoax; Google turns up no hits at all for a boxer of this name at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Even tho this "first openly homosexual boxer" went 0/0/3, you would think you could find something on Google for him. Hoax or he needs a new publicist. Pharmboy 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't feel insulting someones publicist is helping you may aswell rotate sunshine, buy this months RING MAGAZIne which he features in. and also you should tone down on the homophobia why highlight the fact he is openly homosexual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfcnfkcmnsuxh (talk • contribs)

• Selfrightousness isn't necessary as I am not a homophobe. It is a direct quote from the article, which looks quite fishy. So does the fact that someone can't be found on a search engine. Pharmboy 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Possibly a hoax. James Luftan 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and James Luftan. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Cbfcnfkcmnsuxh, who created this article, has been indefinitely blocked for his malicious contributions (i. e. removing the AfD tag three times from the article, even after repeated warnings; insulting me twice on my user talk page; and creating a hoax article). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, Ten Pound, I tried to warn him for getting snippy with you on your user page as well as trying to explain to him why his article was nominated for deletion several seconds before he was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Luftan (talk • contribs)
• Delete Per above, probably a hoax, made by now blocked user. i ^{(said) (did)} 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Probably a hoax. --Boricuaeddie 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Yaeger

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

nn Yeshivish 23:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Neither reference even mentions the subject, either. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. He's not mentioned in the 1st source, but is listed in the 2nd, which is a list of NN players. Bearian 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO; name-dropping to feign notability leaves much to be desired. --Aarktica 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ^♫ 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Zink

not noteable per WP:BIOTruest blue 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and expand. Pro ball player, and has left the bench; needs to find sources. Anyone? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Change vote to delete. Looks like he's a prospect, little else. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOTE. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Zink hasn't pitched in the majors, but he did make the All-Star team for the Class AA Eastern League this season,[1] which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor-league player, and he HAS been the subject of a lot more media coverage than the average minor-league player, due to the fact that he throws a knuckleball (a dying pitch in today's game). I think a reasonable article could be created from various news profiles of him (Sacramento Bee, Rob Neyer at ESPN.com, Baseball Prospectus, Boston Globe, etc.), and I'd be willing to do this if the article is kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would remove my nomination per (Moo!)'s references. However article should enhance emphasis on the knuckleball aspect. Truest blue
• Weak DeleteNeutral Although there are signs of notability, I'd go with WP:BASEBALL's notability criteria of appearing in a game in the majors Corpx 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Corpx, you seem to only rely upon the WP:WPBB criterion of appearing in at least one MLB game for notability. But WP:WPBB specifically states that the WP:BIO criteria also apply? In particular, it seems to me that amateur and minor league players who have had reasonably extensive coverage in the popular press (WP:BIO criterion #1) and who have received notable awards and honors (WP:BIO criterion #3) are potentially sufficiently notable for WP articles. --Sanfranman59 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, but I just cant justify keeping somebody who has not been past AAA Corpx 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with User:Hit bull, win steak's argument. --Sanfranman59 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Corpx -- this one's for you. I'm not a fan of the "play one game at the majors" standard. There are plenty of minor league prospects that warrant inclusion in Wikipedia even though they haven't pitched at the major league level. For example, there is a lot of talk about the Yankees bringing up a hard-throwing prospect named Joba Chamberlain, but he has yet to make the major league level. Does that mean he doesn't belong in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. He's been mentioned in the New York Times, Newsday, the Associated Press and several other major news outlets[2][3][4]. No one has nominated this kid for deletion despite not having pitched a single game at the Major League Level. Simply put, the standard shouldn't be as rigid as you make it out to be. Here, Zink has had significant press coverage because he throws a knuckleball, which is enough to establish notability. Chengwes 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Joba's a different story. He absolutely lit it up at UNL and I'm sure he has plenty of awards to show for his contributions at the "highest amateur level". My reasoning if that if a prospect is that unmissable, then he'd be called up to the majors that much quicker and the guideline would apply Corpx 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But my stance is that if you've received coverage from "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that warrants inclusion into Wikipedia. This kid seems to have met the standard in WP:BIO given the press about his knuckleball. Chengwes 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing that I have little understanding of the sport (or the stats listed in the article, for that matter), I think this article needs improvement to be worth keeping in the encyclopaedia. Remove the name-checking, and the article has little to lean on. --Aarktica 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

RESULT. CitiCat ^♫ 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs played on the Nerve (1995-1998)

List of songs played on the Nerve (1995-1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is... not an article. It's essentially archival material, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It may give us an idea of what was popular in a particular place in the mid-nineties, but if we're going to have that we might as well include peoples account books. Delete. (was prodded and de-prodded, sorry for the somewhat pointless debate) Mak (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Archival, non-notable per WP:NOTE, also violates WP:WWIN#INFO. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nearly everything is wrong about this article. It's a trivial list, with no encyclopedic merit, all loosely connected. --Haemo 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a directory (of songs played by a radio station) Corpx 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the bleeding obvious. I might suggest a speedy per WP:SNOW just to save everyone the time. Resolute 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Let's hope that Wikipedia never gets so inclusive that it keeps an encylopedia article on the music played ten years ago on a radio station in Rochester, New York. Mandsford 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

James Renner

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

nn journalist Bat ears 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Concur, delete. Nonexistent refs, NN even per creator's own (unsubstantiated) descrip. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Google news only picking up articles by him, not about him Corpx 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Corpx. Article needs cites to verify the claims. Bearian 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Notable, Notable Notable. Renner is well-known in the city (one of the towns 30 interesting persons), he's directed the [[Steven King¨¨ short story film All That You Love Will Be Carried Away which was honored as an official choice of the Montreal World Film Festival. The film was part of Steven King's Dollar Baby program for upcoming directors. Renner organized and ran the first two Dollar Baby Film Festivals, which were held in Steven King's hometown in Maine. He's also acted in film and TV (notably in the TV series Project Greenlight founded by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and worked in film production, as well as writing screenplays. Besides this, as we all know, he's a respected journalist, and he wrote a book about one of the most well-known child murders in America. Even though it was in the late 1980s, the case is still being written about, and Renner is a huge celebrity in the Midwest of the U.S. He probably didn't make a big deal about it, because people in the midwest are humble. He's all over the TV, even recently, about this case. He's no normal reporter, though he's a good one. You can see him on the Cleveland Fox station, as well as all over YouTube. I can add some of that material tommorrow. I already sourced it. I also have other concerns that Renner is one of several being here unfairly targeted by VO. I've put those concerns here. Along with a debate between myself and Mr. Bat ears. BlueSapphires 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK - I've created a Workshop space where I tossed most of the articles I found - totally unformatted. There is also an online Fox interview of Renner, and two other newstation interviews, with him as the Amby M. expert. You can either wait til Monday (when I can format them and rewrite) or format what I put in there and find the videos yourselves - ta! BlueSapphires 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Journalist is well noted in his field, has been the director of a film written by a well known author, is a notable author himself, and has won various awards. This article needs to be worked on, not deleted. Also, it should be taken into account that a lack of google hits does not certify non-notability. The circumstances of this AfD, per BlueSapphires, also disturb me a little bit. CaveatLector^Talk 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep meets the inclusion and notability criteria. -Nard 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, meets WP:BIO as the subject is evidently notable within his field. RFerreira 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Renner is notable enough to meet inclusion criteria. As has been said, Google searches are not the last word in notability. The article could do with some fixing and perhaps a better assertion of notability by including more reliable sources, but that should have warranted a simple {{notability}} tag, not a full-on AfD. An attempt to fix an article should be made before considering deletion. --clpo13_(talk) 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, and rewrite Notable enough in my opinion, but the article is poorly put together and its links have to be updated. PKT 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures.

Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. Corvus cornix 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, complete OR--Jac16888 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is more like a project/essay made without any sources.--JForget 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, unsourced essay/OR. Doesn't belong at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsalvagable original research. -WarthogDemon 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - or totally rewrite. As I recall there is no discussion in the various stories about the reproductive mechanisms, and mating habits of the various creatures. Looks like all original research. If some actual research exists....please put it in? --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and consider BJAODNing. Original research, no secondary sources provided. 17Drew 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I did move it to my own, newly formed BJAODN... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• You forgot the period in the title. It's Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures. not Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures In fact, the period in the title might actually make it BJAODN-quality. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Period added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not sure if it qualifies for BJAODNing, but it's unsalvageable OR. I've read the books and they never even allude to procreation of Narnian creatures. Besides, it would be unencyclopedic even if there was actually actually research. It should be moved to "Symbolism that Doesn't Exist Wiki". Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it seems like someone had a lot of time to think about this topic, and decided to write an unsourced list of their thoughts on the subject. --Haemo 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a bad essay, but essays are what Wikipedia is Not. Resolute 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and WP:DAFT. What a title! Grutness...wha? 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete toss a WP:SNOW at it! Spazure 07:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article creator removed the AfD tag and replaced it with the following. Administrative action on my part, I have no opinion on the AfD. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thr reason for this page's existence is for the archival of the clues and incosistencies regrrding who certain narnian species were brought to life and reproduce,Note:Please do not delete this page.

Reasoning isn't the same thing as making an argument, based on policy, for why it should be kept. There's lots of policies -- some even conflict. If you truly want it to be kept, you can likely find a good policy to support your stance. Spazure 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's not a debate unless someone cares enough to debate with you. Say, why did the castaways take all their belongings with them on a three hour tour? And was it the dog, or the farmer, whose name was Bingo? Mandsford 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, never thought about that before, dog or farmer? What's the castaways one about though?--Jac16888 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter was from a ballad authored by the American poet, Sherwood Charles Schwartz (1916- ), a poem which the 1960s philosopher R. Osbourne Denver (1935-2005) described as "the voluntarily memorized anthem for an entire generation of American schoolchildren". Mandsford 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bingo (song) "states based on proper usage of grammar, one can assume Bingo is referred to as the dog's name." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, unless someone can find discussion of this subject in some Lewis/Narnia journal. In that (unlikely) event, move to some less cumbersome title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think this article is someone's way of gathering information for a school exercise. In issue 42 of Australian Screen Education, the magazine proposes that Primary school and middle years teachers "encourage students to work in pairs or small groups to investigate mythological creatures and legendary tales to discover the basis for some Narnian creatures."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense/test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17Drew (talk • contribs)

Tyflo

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

I have no idea... --Ouzo 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Me neither. Speedy delete G1 (patent nonsense), so tagged (not by me). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Ohnoitsjamie, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Killoren Bensimon

Kelly Killoren Bensimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Simple being married to a fashion photographer does not always mean notability. -WarthogDemon 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince per this discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Half-Blood Prince (character)

Half-Blood Prince (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page duplicates the plot of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the fictional biography of the character Severus Snape, to whom it refers. In previous discussions on the talk page, Potter fans defended the article on the grounds that some readers would prefer not to have the knowledge of Snape's identity "spoiled." But Wikipedia is not censored. Both the Snape article and the book article disclose this information anyway—as does this article. Also, there are not very many links to this article in the main namespace, so this is not a very likely entry point for the typical reader. Marc Shepherd 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - duplicate. ←Ben^B4 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, duplicate repeated redundancy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article and/or maybe merge with the minor character list article.--JForget 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• speedy redirect totally redundant. The spoiler argument is bogus as a reason for two article. That's a new id concept , spoiler-branch. Ingenious way of dealing with the problem, but worse than either alternative. No. DGG (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - as suggested above. Does this name also need to be protected as the redirect in some way? As far as the comment that a redirect might be a spoiler, the novel has been published for at least two years, and the movie is well into pre-production. --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Eugene rowan

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

Claims to be a Medal of Honor winner, but there is no such person in a Google search for '"Eugene rowan" "medal of honor"'. The supposed sources are no help, and in fact, one of them is word for word from this, so it's a copyvio as well, but let's kill it instead of just deleting it as a copyvio. It's a hoax. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio, hoax or not. Nom has clearly outlined the page's erroneous ways. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as hoax, doesn't meet speedy since it's not copyvio. Good catch, Bart133. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. It's not actually a copyvio. The source you mentioned is actually an obvious copy and paste job of the page source. Notice the square brackets appearing where there's a link on the article. Looks like the author of the page is trying to provide "reliable sources". Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and warn editor. Total hoax, and falsely claiming to be a MOH recipient is actually a crime under US law. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, guys. According to this, hoaxes do not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion here is not possible. --Boricuaeddie 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not notable among other reasons (the quotes section serves no purpose whatsover). Do not warn the editor as per above, he did nothing wrong, however, you may want to check that he is aware of Wikipedia's policies.James Luftan 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC) — James Luftan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Boricuaeddie 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating a hoax is most certainly "something wrong". Corvus cornix 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes corpus, it certainly is, but I was saying that perhaps the editor is new....Wait.. There is a tiny misunderstanding. By warn I thought that Bullzeye meant block; I figured that that was a little harsh, I thought that maybe it should be explained to him. On second thught, I agree with you whole heartedly, especially after learning that claiming to be a MOH recipient is against the law. James Luftan 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The one source that the article has is very thin, and not even independent---It's from freewebs! James Luftan 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've taken the liberty of erasing the text of the article, since it can't be speedily deleted. For anyone who thinks that's extreme, anyone has the right to restore this garbage by clicking on the history portion. Only a few of our World War II veterans remain. Note to hoaxster, don't try a stunt like this again. 67.87.119.55 and 69.119.145.179 and Robertmorrone could be identified if anyone wants to push the point with the ISP. However, I think you're a bored kid (probably helped by some friends) who simply made a dumb mistake. Be careful in the future. Mandsford 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. I am not sure if blanking it before closing the AfD is proper. Bearian 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  As I say, anyone can put that crap back if they want to. It's not gone forever.... yet. Mandsford 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no content and the surname has no capital. I mean, really. McLarenJAB 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Georges Harik

The article is about a director of Google, failing WP:BLP by lacking entirely in reliable sources about the subject. If this person were an executive-level employee there may be something there, but corporate directors are a dime a dozen. Delete, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a personal webhost. Burntsauce 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

* Related discussion(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Stein

• Weak keep He has the status of "Distinguished Engineer", product manager for an important group of projects, and has an impressive background. At a company like Google this may well be significant, and I'd like to hear from the experts. DGG (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As is, it's nearly worthless and entirely sourceless. Recreation with proper adherence to WP:NOTE and WP:CITE, (however unlikely) is always on the table. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week delete. Sounds like he might be borderline notable, but at the very least the article needs sourcing. Xihr 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah i'd delete this any day of the week.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Xihr. Bearian 22:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Except spelled right. Xihr 02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Freakshow (Britney Spears Song)

Freakshow (Britney Spears Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is nearly identical to Get Back (Britney Spears song), which has also been nominated for deletion. Both articles claim it as the first new Britney Spears single and both have the same gossip-oriented-website sources. Not sure which song is which or what is being released but it seems way too soon for all this speculation. Suggest merging to album article until a definitive statement is released by the record company. - eo 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to album until next single is confirmed. No need to be so premature in creating articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Make a special section in the album page. Because there is to little information for a seperate page but it is notewhorty because we know there was a video shot, so there is a first single on the way very soon and in a clip on x17 from the set you hear the single say freakshow. So I say merge.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Given that there's been no reliable reports of a song titled "Freakshow" appearing on Spears's next album, a redirect is (at this point) useless and may mislead readers into believing that there will be a song under that title on the album. Leaving a redirect would perpetuate misinformation that arose from speculation. Extraordinary Machine 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Aarktica 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lynnanne Zager

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

Created with posible conflict of interest from the creator. Prodded with suspicions of self-praise spam; prod was removed by the false claim new information was added. -WarthogDemon 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, article is a direct lift from this entry on Lostpedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please don't delete this entry. It is a valid entry. Thank you. sgwoolf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgwoolf (talk • contribs). — Sgwoolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Only it seems to be spamish and how has been proven to be lifted from a separate website. -WarthogDemon 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, nothing but self-referential spam, doesn't meet WP:NOTE...squish. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as she may be famous in the industry, but without cites the article can be deleted. Bearian 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 12-sided delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references
• Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references (2nd nomination)

List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unacceptable trivia collection, completely skirting the important controversies the game has sparked over the years. Eyrian 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as with all other 'X in pop culture' indiscriminate lists. CaveatLector^Talk 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Isn't this the 2nd AfD for this article? Am surprised it passed first time. Canuckle 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is, Here is the first AFD. Otto4711 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Info - That links is just a redirect to the 2nd one. Where is the original discussion? Turlo Lomon 11:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the above as trivia-filled article.--JForget 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as reasonable article showing the role of the subject in contemporary culture. Important in the world, further sourcing not impossible. "Violate the pillars" is in fact a new argument, perhaps in reflection of the fact that these articles do not violate any specific policy in wikipedia. Many have been suggested in the various proposals, none of them actually talk about this. They do not violate the pillars any more than the policies, and I would like a specific argument about why the violate V as a pillar for example, when there is no provision in V as a policy for removing the article. DGG (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - while "violate the pillars" may be a new argument, Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics is an old favorite. The things captured on this list tell us nothing about D&D, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about how any of it is related to each other and nothing about the world in general. I mean really, we get it, "Dungeons and Dragons" is often used by lazy scriptwriters as an easy way to establish a character's nerd cred. Find a magazine article that says so, put a line in a D&D article with a footnote and be done with it. A ginormous list of every time someone rolls a d20 on TV is worthless. Otto4711 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto. --Haemo 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Popular culture references" lists, even within articles, really never add anything to the topic. Just non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja
• Delete per WP:5 and the relationship between this and D&D is extremely "loose" (WPNOT) Corpx 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm an old player and DM; I used to write for TSR, as did many of my friends (my attorney gets a credit line in the Dungeon Masters Guide); I find the way that D&D players are mischaracterized interesting. But as has been said, there is nothing encyclopedic about this kind of article; it adds nothing to the sum of human learning.
• Keep - This article, and other 'in popular culture' articles, serve to identify how a phenomenon is perceived or used, how pervasive it is over time, and how perception of it may change over time. Much as a proper dictionary uses citations to show how words are actually used, lists of popular culture references provide living context to a topic, whether D&D, a film, or a comic catch phrase. At most, merge this into the main article.Lizard sf 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- As far as In popular culture articles go, this is poor. Literally, just a mention of D&D is enough to get added to this list. Saikokira 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge -- Though the latter is the lesser of the two options, since the parent article is already quite large. I notice that this article has been worked on by a lot of different contributors over nearly two years. The nominator himself speaks of a cultural impact, describing controversies over the last several years that have not been included...is editing a better solution than deletion, if that's the problem? For the most part, the cultural references to this nearly 35 year old game, played by millions over that stretch of time, are negative. Given the cult like following of "D & D", and the rite of passage that is associated with giving the game up, BTW, I don't get the 2nd nomination part. Clerical error? Just curious. Mandsford 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, somewhat refed now, just needs more. - Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: please see WP:PSTS, which states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Emphasis not mine. María (críticame) 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Indiscriminate laundry list of mostly trivial references. Someone was seen playing D&D in a TV show once... someone said they liked D&D in something else. So what? Crazysuit 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsourced (meaning reliable, third-party sources that attests to D&D's impact of PC, not just a source that verifies that the pop culture reference exists) list of trivial and encyclopedic indiscriminate information. No one is claiming that D&D is not a pop culture phenomenon and loved by dorks world-wide, but this article is just a laundry list (as Crazysuit puts it) of any time D&D is mentioned anywhere -- this does not a good article make. I am also very much against merging it. María (críticame) 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because the topic's notability fails to be established by listing passing mentions of Dungeons & Dragons in various media. There is no encyclopedic real-world context offered here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dean Howes

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

Non-notable person. Although he may have been a CEO in the past, this in itself does not make someone notable. Oli Filth 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Merely throwing down "related" links and calling them references doesn't make the subject meet WP:NOTE. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Looked through google news and most of the articles just quote him from his official position. Then again, there are lots of these entries there. Just not sure Corpx 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Pro CEO in the past and a current Partner of a sports/media firm that holds over 500MM in equity. He is a partial owner of two major league franchises, two major league stadiums and multiple media outputs. Definitley wikipedia worthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.220.204 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 July 2007.
• Keep after checking some of the GNews results, it looks like he is being quoted because his positions make him notable. DGG (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely if you look through sltrib.com and desnews.com (both are mainstay SLC newspapers)it seems that he is not only a large part of the sporting community but a large part of the community period. User:MEEETOO (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DGG and Corpx. --Aarktica 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Seems important enough to have on wikipedia. He is in the public eye a lot according to Google News and he is a partial owner of two fairly well known sporting teams. --Hawk-eye 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. In addition to the references on Salt Lake City-area news websites, internet searches show his profile is high enough to begin to warrant mentions in national magazines like Sports Illustrated (here) and Inc. (here) Kayaker 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cockatrice in modern fantasy fiction and games

Cockatrice in modern fantasy fiction and games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivia collection of references, some of which aren't even about cockatrices ("In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, there was also a basilisk; but the creatures were very different."). Eyrian 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does it even need to be said at this point? CaveatLector^Talk 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh...squash, and quickly, I'd list the reasons but it's self-explanatory. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this one is easy. Punkmorten 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because they didn't mention Gemstone IV. Er.. I mean.. list of loosely associated topics, or whatever the current argument against pop culture lists is. Spazure 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) fails WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOTE too. Spazure 05:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why is there an impression that it is non-encyclopedic? A encyclopedia collects information on topics of interest. This is a type of character, used in different games and fantasy because it is assumed to have a certain basic set of characteristics that will be meaning to the people playing/reading the material. How it is used is encyclopedic. How it is used wrong is also valid content: the two items on Potter simply need to be combined--minor editing problem.

Comment: I am not sure how to interpret the above argument--does it mean, I dislike the article, and I therefore want it removed, and I don't care what argument may be used--appropriate or otherwise.? AGF, that must not be the meaning intended, because who would actually !vote in an AfD for the express reason of dontlikeit. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to me (which I can't tell for sure), actually, I like lists -- they're amusing. Nonetheless, WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep something, and I know that there's a current policy against "in popular culture" lists in general (note: not every single one, in fact I helped fight for one just last week.. but in general) -- I'm just too new to understand and/or remember the specific policy, but I know somebody else will inevitably cite it before the close of this AfD. Once I know what it is, I'll change my statement to be more specific. Spazure 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Cockatrice and then delete. Mandsford 23:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If content is merged then the history cannot be deleted for GFDL concerns. Jay32183 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Cultural references to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE), adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. Eyrian 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps create a category for 'Christian mythology in art and literature' and then delete. CaveatLector^Talk 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• This restatement of the pillars has ever been marked as official policy. Nor perhaps should it be, for it incorporates many matters from guidelines and other less-than-pillar matters. Technically, I think its present status is an essay. The official statement of the policy seems to be the one presently on meta at [5] and the generally authoritative opinion about the overall principles is Jimbo's at [User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles]. Neither of them mentions that this sort of articles are to be rejected.

The provision of the so-called policy page referred to is probably that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". That is 'not the same as saying that it can not contain some elements that in some way in some persons eyes seem to be trivia. To delete it under that provision requires showing that

1. it is a correct statement of policy
2. that it applies to all articles that contain lists of trivia, not merely to the overall nature of the encyclopedia
3. that this article contains only trivia--for if not, its just an editing question.DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's your interpretation of the "essay". To me, a "trivia collection" is any article that solely contains trivial information. Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Jimbo's thoughts on WP:5/trivia collection - link Corpx 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, concur with CaveatLector. Far too long to integrate, far too detailed to simply squish. Create the category and save the article, as it does seem to have value. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument over what the five pillars do or don't say or how to interpret the Holy Rood of Jimbo Wales. For me, the ever-reliable Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics will suffice. This grab-bag listing of every time the FHOTA are depicted or some variation on the FHOTA is alluded to or Satan says "horsemen" in the South Park movie does nothing to illuminate the FHOTA, tells us nothing about the fiction from which the FHOTA references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between the various items or the real world. Otto4711 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

well, I'll stick to policy. There are many types of articles I'd omit from WP entirely if I were running it, but I'm not running it--so I don't nominate them if they pass the rules, for the rules represent the consensus of us all.

I call attention to the interesting fact that as the discussion has progressed, first it was alleged that the articles didn't meet one policy, and when that couldn't be proven, then another, and after none of them could be shown finally the basic foundations. Now it is admitted that those don't give a basis either, so we're back to IDONTLIKEIT, the negation of all rational arguments. For articles IDONTLIKE, I ignore, and leave other people in peace. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh bullshit, or should I say horseshit (of the apocalypse). Different editors can and do cite different policy reasons in the course of AFDs and that one policy argument is raised after another doesn't mean that the first one hasn't been proven. You're certainly free to claim until the cows come home that the arguments raised and accepted in one AFD of these articles after another is nothing more than "dontlikeit" but it doesn't become any more true the 20th time you claim it than it was the first time. Clearly, these articles don't pass the rules. You may not like how the rules are being applied to them, and that's too bad for you. Otto4711 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-contextual trivia. This list doesn't really add anything to any particular topics, nor is it very interesting, or referenced at all. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per #3 of DGG "that this article contains only trivia" Corpx 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

you've got to show 1 and 2 first. and if you did, or for those who may assume it, then: Ibanez's novel isnt trivial--nor Discworld, nor Piers Anthony, to mention some where the reference is central-- nor Tombstone, nor Chavez, not Notre Dame, to mention important places where the reference must be known to establish the meaning. I'm sure many of the ones in fields i dont know about are significant too. deletion is the wrong way to edit. The mentions above of things which should be cut are not reason to delete the whole, for this or any other article. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• While it doesn't have a policy tag on that page, I would hope that everyone follows it. I have no problems basing my arguments on that one "essay" Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Changed post-categorization suggestion to keep on the possibility that this can be rewritten into a detailed article with good sources that does not list trivia in this manner. For those interested in helping populate this category, I created it at Category:Christian mythology in art and literature. CaveatLector^Talk 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  Do you realize how many songs/movies/books/tv-shows/paintings reference Jesus, God, angels, Satan, demons, Heaven, Hell, sin, etc? Such a category would not be helpful to anyone. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

you are correct that that would be an indiscriminate list. A selected one of significant references would be much smaller, and that's what this is, a discriminating list. You've nicely elucidated the difference I intended to show by my examples above. DGG (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as discriminating as List of titles with "Darker" in them (which was deleted, by the way). And what part, honestly, is useful? Someone who is genuinely interested in the Four Horsemen will not really gain much by reading this. 'In the fifth season of Scrubs, episode 508 "My Big Bird", Dr. Cox refers to Turk, Carla, J.D. and Elliot as "The Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse".' The only person I can see who would get an actual benefit from this list is one of the actual Horsemen, because it'd be really cool to show their friends. If this were made into an actual contextual article, it'd still be OR, unless there are verifiable sources on the impact of the Four Horsemen on popular culture. It's WP:Trivia and WP:Listcruft, toss it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't as good as, In the fifth series of the American Big Brother reality TV show, four of the players made an alliance and called themselves The Four Horsemen. Crazysuit 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article, however, needs to be trimmed way down. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been a cultural phenomenon since the Book of Revelation was written back in the First Century A.D. Eyrian, I notice that you have nominated NINETEEN articles for today, all having to do with "...in popular culture" or an equivalent. I don't recall any other Wikipedia Administrator taking such an active role in nominating articles for deletion. There are 185 nominations to consider, and you and one other person seem to be responsible for nearly 20 percent of that unusually high number. Unlike the articles about a non-notable person, school or business, the "pop culture" articles generally require a lot more time to review. Thus, I don't understand why so many are nominated every day. I think that, whether we vote "delete" or "keep", all of us are getting a little tired of this. I know that the logical comeback is that I don't have to participate at all, or the old incivility argument, but this is really getting tiresome. Mandsford 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I nominate many because these lists are self-propagating. If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable, and they multiply. They need to be eliminated at a stroke, to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encyclopedia. I don't see why they take that long to review. No more than 3-5 minutes to read. And it takes little more than reading them to understand their triviality. --Eyrian 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• "If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable". Interesting. Are there any pop culture articles that you don't believe should be nominated? Do you believe that you can stamp out all such articles? Is there an admonition to editors to not create an a pop culture article. The second part is that you say your are trying "to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encylopedia". Was there a time when the so-called trivia had been eliminated? Was that before Wikipedia started encouraging anyone to edit? :I think that the nominations are "multiplying". I see no pressing reason for these to be nominated in bunches every day. The result is the creation of bunches of long debates, and a closing administrator has to wade through each long debate in order to reach a decision. From what I understand, most of these people are volunteers who are in it because they enjoy it. There is no reason to increase their workload, since you can nominate the same number of articles over a longer period. Mandsford 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• You will note that I chose my terminology very carefully; I said lists, not articles. It's these worthless lists of trivia that need to be excised. In fact, there are articles that I haven't nominated. Because they're cited analyses, not pointless lists of brief appearances. As for workload... if people don't want to work on Wikipedia, they don't have to. The work will have to be done sooner or later. And doing it faster means there's less of it to be done. --Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)--Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the well-expressed nomination & Otto. Eusebeus 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mostly loosely associated trivia based on meaningless mentions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Crazysuit 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are dozens of articles of this style in Wikipedia. How can just this one be slated for destruction? Songs, movies, books, fictional characters - why not the 4 Horsemen? --Chiba13 12:27, 1 August 2007

• Not only is other stuff exists not a valid argument, but you might want to page through the AfD histories of the last month... CaveatLector^Talk 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete though a judicious selection of the items in the article could belong in Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'm not suggesting it be fully incorporated into the main article (like it was 500+ edits ago but that highlights be extracted and integrated into the main article, preferably in the form of a narrative rather than a list. I agree with Chiba13 that these lists of (mostly pop) cultural references seem randomly targeted. Kayaker 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaz Wylie

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

I do not see how this fictional character asserts any notability, other than the fact that it is part of Bad Girls. Reliable sources are nonexistent in this article. Since it has some context, it might be disputed that I put a speedy tag on it, so I'm listing it here to gather true consensus for deletion. (→O - RLY?) 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, per WP:NOTE and nom. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage of this character from independent sources. Corpx 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:FICT. --Aarktica 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G1 --Eyrian 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yoyomanswingwong

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

Delete: Obviously a hoax, verging on CSD G1 (Contested PROD)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedied, A7. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg Stein

Wikipedia is not a hosting service for resumes or personal homepages. An engineering manager for Google, I'm sure the perks are nice there, but this article grossly fails WP:BLP lacking entirely in reliable sources about the subject. There are millions of engineering managers for notable companies, but that notability is not inherited. Burntsauce 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7. I agree with nom and, after all, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™. —Travis^talk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 per nom. Not at all a notable person, fails WP:BLP. Make sure that someone on the commons nukes the pic too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mermaids in popular culture

Mermaids in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE. The most important ones are already contained in the quite-adequate section in the main article. Eyrian 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment "The most important ones are already contained in the quite-adequate section in the main article." ??!?!?! There IS NO section in the main article about it. None. Nothing. Except a link to the in popular culture article. Bad faith nomination for sure here, as the person didn;t even look at the article. DreamGuy 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid#Legend and myth. --Eyrian 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the WP:TRIVIA article says nothing about deleting real info, it just says it shouldn't be in list format. Just because you're too lazy to edit it, it's not a justification to delete the whole article. DreamGuy 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep on dreaming there Dreamguy, we delete plenty of "real info" every day. Real things happen all the time, that doesn't make them automatically notable or worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is pretty good, as far as an in popular culture article goes. Where does Five pillars ban "In popular culture" articles? Are you saying this article is unencylopedic or NPOV? Besides, at least this one isn't a huge, bulleted list. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bullet points don't really make the difference, it's just a bunch of single-issue paragraphs. The first pillar of Wikipedia includes "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". --Eyrian 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• And by your definition of trivia (versus format) no article on Wikipedia would be kept, you'd delete them all. The topic here is jhust as encyclopedic as any other topic. Go actually read policies before putting things up for deletion. DreamGuy 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can assure you, I read the article and the appropriate policies. The list would be the same with or without some trivial formatting convention. It's just a trivial list, regardless of whether the paragraphs start with little boxes or not. --Eyrian 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - If you think there's too much trivia, EDIT THE ARTICLE. Deleting it and having people just push the trivia onto the main article wastes everyone's time, as it'll just have to get deleted in the future, or get spun off into a new article again. Popular culture is a topic that can have solid, encyclopedic information, and much of the content is very salvageable. All we have here are pup culture article haters who don;t think ahead far enough to realize that these were spun off for a very important reason. DreamGuy 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A very important comment, the reasons you give here are not a valid reason for speedy keeping. Speedy keeps are used when procedure is not followed correctly or in cases of obvious bad faith. You should assume the good faith of the article's nominator as well as those voting delete, and you should, at the very least, watch your tone, as it is extremely uncivil, and comes off as merely angry and (to be honest) immature. Not a single one of the editors nominating these articles or those voting delete 'hate' pop culture or pop culture articles if they are done well and are not huge lists of complete crap. There was no important reason to spin these articles off (WP:FORK?). The reason why most of these articles were created was because the trivia and/or 'pop culture' sections in articles were becoming bloated lists of indiscriminate information. CaveatLector^Talk 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The page cited is an essay, incorporating material from various levels of acceptance in WP. It is perhaps being cited because none of the actual policy pages on WP provide for the deletion of this sort of article. .If there's material too unimportant for an article edit the article. one argument for deletion does not fit all--personally, I don't think much of proposals for deletion which do not show some awareness of the specific contents of the page. We do not delete on the basis of page title alone.DGG (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you, DGG, to give an example on this discussion page of a specific paragraph or piece of information contained within the article that is actually useful, verifiable, and relevant to the subject at hand (the subject being Mermaids. CaveatLector^Talk

• Keep Gain consensus to change the essay to a policy if you want to kill ALL trivia articles, but frankly, it's not policy yet and I doubt it ever will be. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. What an odd idea for an article. I mean, what are mermaids other than in popular culture? Perhaps this should be Mermaids in an era when no sane adult could seriously believe that mermaids really exist, but that would be a bit unwieldy. Most "XYZ in popular culture" articles are crap compilations of teenage obsessions; this one too isn't crap-free, but it's actually pretty good as they go. By all means remove its more trivial content but let it live on. (Time/energy permitting, I'll add a note on Zemlinsky's Seejungfrau: a fine piece of music.) -- Hoary 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) .... altered Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (note new vote below).
• Delete, cultural impact isn't shown by writing down every time something appeared somewhere. Punkmorten 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a list. Its just not bulleted. Listing every time ________ something has appeared in TV/Movies/Radio/books is trivial information, so delete per WP:FIVE Corpx 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Change to Keep and rename(RE: comments below) -- I wonder why more people want to keep this list than do in the usual In popular culture articles? I think it's just because it isn't bulleted (as Corpx mentioned), so it might give the impression it's a more substantial article. It isn't, it's just a list of loosely associated topics (from Fantasy Island to Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie to Bewitched) stuck together just because they all featured a mermaid. At some point. Saikokira 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cut a lot of NN stuff, junk, trivia etc. You may still hate the article (or insist that it's no more than a list), but anyway it's shorter. -- Hoary 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's an improvement, possibly the way to go would be to rename it Cultural depictions of mermaids and concentrate on examples that are specifically notable for their depiction of mermaids. I've changed to my recommendation to keep on that basis.Saikokira 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd been thinking of Mermaids in the arts myself, not least because such works as Die Seejungfrau have hardly been "popular". -- Hoary 05:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per every other in popular culture article deleted recently. Listcruft, trivia, indiscriminate information, and original research. Resolute 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, really? I discriminated, and deleted a pile of "information". The result is still a mess, of course, but then a high percentage of WP articles are messes. -- Hoary 05:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And while your effort is commendable, it doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a trivia section acting as an article Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely associated topics. Resolute 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Then perhaps we disagree on what's trivia. I don't see a history of artistic representations of this or that imagined phenomenon as inherently trivial, though I'd concede that trivia remains in this article (and that it's shoddily sourced). I wondered what kind of articles you might like, and a bit of sleuthing on your user page took me to 1988-89 Calgary Flames season. The first one fifth or so of it looks like an article, but the rest looks like a series of neatly formatted trivia to me. Now, I realize that my finding adult men running around after balls occasionally ridiculous but mostly soporific may be most abnormal; still, you might ask yourself whether such material as Jim Peplinski 24 79 13 25 38 241 20 1 6 7 75 Theoren Fleury 14 36 14 20 34 46 22 5 6 11 24 Mark Hunter 22 66 22 8 30 194 10 2 2 4 23 Jamie Macoun 34 72 8 19 27 76 22 3 6 9 30 etc etc etc is so very much more deserving than an as-yet poorly arranged series of fairly coherently written paragraphs on mermaid appearances. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not going to waste my time defending an article on a different topic that is unrelated to this one. The problem with this article is that a random listing of things that happen to mention or include mermaids is hardly a "history of artistic representations" of mermaids. Show me some reliable sources that discuss mermaids in popular culture, and I'll listen. Resolute 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, Mermaid itself does. I'd looked at that too quickly. See my revised vote/suggestion below. -- Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an indiscriminate list of information and I would ike to add a plea for sanity that should come through in my comments in this discussion. CaveatLector^Talk 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's me that's being accused of insanity, that's perfectly fine. Perhaps it's insanity that causes me to wonder about the continuation of the charge that this list is "an indiscriminate list of information" so soon after (i) I discriminated among what I saw and deleted half of it, (ii) I announced this (above, 03:49, 27 July 2007), (iii) this act of discriminating deletion persuaded User:Saikokira to change his or her vote from delete to keep (above, 04:11, 27 July 2007); (iv) Saikokira and I have thought of new titles that are likely to keep at bay would-be adders of Finalfantasy-Dragonballquest-Starwarstrek-cruft. -- Hoary 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That sanity comment was really directed at the entire discussion in general. Although it's apparent you've worked hard in this case to discriminate among the information, it's still rather loosely associated. Some of this article actually looks like it might move into a well sourced discussion of the portrayal of mermaids in art ('pop' or not); however, it's going to be rather difficult to surpass the Mermaid#Legend and myth section that is already in the main article, and if new, well sourced, information can be added, it should probably go there. CaveatLector^Talk 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, Mermaid#Legend and myth certainly is a lot better than the article up for deletion. What's to be done? (I'm now too sleepy to comment further.) -- Hoary 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per CaveatLector 15:54, 27 July; but first dump the content into Talk:Mermaid (whose readers may well want no part of it). -- Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if not fixed, per PunkMortem. The problem with this article is that there is no point, and no one is really editing it. I could find it acceptable if it were a bare (not annotated) list of blue links. Theoretically, if this were actually an article about Mermaids, and their depiction and importance in popular culture, I might support that, but I think the main article Mermaid already deals with these issues in a good way, without particularly emphasizing modern popular culture (as I have seen nothing to indicate that the modern pop culture idea of a Mermaid is any different). This article is just a cruft-magnet now, and full of cruft. If someone is willing to fix it up, I'd be willing to change my opinion. Mangojuice^talk 14:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Mergemaid Mandsford 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing encyclopedic here. IPSOS (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and continuing with bold editing processes to make it stronger. Otto1970 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete triviacruft. GlassFET 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge It should be cut down and probably merged with the Mermaid article. Having an article of it all by itself, it doesn't meet the criteria. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per (Hoary 02:49 July 28)/(CaveatLector 15:54 July 27). Kayaker 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keyrock

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

Non-notable character. Corvus cornix 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no independent sources. I'd say merge... but where? --Eyrian 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced article about someone's D&D character. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Oli Filth 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to United States Senate#Members and elections. El_C 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Senator-elect

Senator-elect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not really new information. The 2006 list is out-of-date. What's the point? The information about their rights/powers/franking/etc. can be merged to United States Senate#Members and elections.—Markles 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom - I dont see any need for a term like this Corpx 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom, --CapitalR 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Senate. List will constantly be out of date. CaveatLector^Talk 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to United States Senate#Members and elections, per nom. Redundant. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would suggest against a redirect directly to the US Senate on the ground that this term can possibly be used to refer to members-elect of other senatorial bodies. CaveatLector^Talk 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with CaveatLector. Change my nomination above to: redirect to Senate.—Markles 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Bullzeye. Bearian 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Mandsford 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Shuang Wen

This is an unsourced orphan biography of a living journalist. It has been tagged as orphan since November last year. Edits since the article's creation in July, 2005 have nearly all been tagging, wikifying and the like. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 17 July. The tag was removed on 22 July but no further edits were made.

And so we're here.

I suggest that we either source this article or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete there is no provision to delete for the absence of sources. What I think is intended, is that there are no sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject, which seems perfectly true, and is a good reason to delete, unless they can be found. Ic an find nothing on Google News, and nothing that seems relevant on Google, but it's a commonly found name.DGG (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  To clarify: I don't care about "notability", a weak and vague idea that has somehow gotten a grip on a lot of editors who should really know better. What matters here is verifiability, which is solid policy. Without sources we simply don't have a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's most basic policies. To claim that we can delete an article because it doesn't pass some idiotic "notability" test but we cannot delete an unverifiable article is to stand Wikipedia policy on its head. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Articles about minor Chinese journalists writing magazines in Chinese are utterly unverifiable (IMO barely escaping {{db-nocontext}}) and unexpandable if the page author doesn't bother to provide the name in Chinese and the journalist is not widely noted in English sources. Impossible to guess how Shuang Wen writes her name, so instead I tried looking for the magazine. Came up with nothing useful for a few variations of literal translations of "Hotfoot" in Chinese on Google, as well as searching on the English title but restricting to Chinese pages. cab 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Corpx. Bearian 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO _{(and dare I say WP:BLP...)} --Aarktica 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fork of Church Street bombing. El_C 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1983 Church street bombing

1983 Church street bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Okay, no one else seems to want to do anything about this ridiculous article. I speedy deleted it once, now I want to make sure we all agree that it's not fit to be here Deb 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as non-notable, not sure if it meets any speedy candidates. Full of spammy links and whatnot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see we already have Church Street bombing, so not only is this page a wreck, it's redundant too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does it actually say "more info to follow soon" at the foot of this article? Maybe move it to someones sandbox. I'm all for wikis being a work-in-progress, but this one is really bad. Burntsauce 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Church Street bombing, the much better article on this very notable historical event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect this useless and extremly messy duplicated article.--JForget 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect Unsalvageably NPOV POV. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Church Street bombing. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete to get this POV screed (most of which isn't even about the actual event) out of the edit history and then redirect to the much better article. And we should keep an eye on that article for the insertion of POV material. Iain99 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and then redirect the title to Church Street bombing. Bearcat 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldn't even bother with a redirect. If you know it was the "1983 Church Street bombing", then you know it was the Church Street bombing. This rambling commentary, with illustrations, does not belong in an encylopedia. Mandsford 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But you might not know that we have an article at that title... Bearcat 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor would I know that we have an article called "1983 Church Street bombing". However, if we search for "Church Street" both articles would turn up. The only difference between the two titles is that one of them requires guessing the year that it happened. Mandsford 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses

Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of occurrences of a popular nursery rhyme. Trivia collection, unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I guess authors are trying toname it is many ways as possible those trivia-filled articles.--JForget 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In what way does Five Pillars ban In Popular Culture articles? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• First pillar says that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". --Eyrian 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't Five Pillars more of an overview of policy than actual policy? The trivia link points to a page in the Manual of Style, which encourages rewrites, not wholesale deletion. Besides you give no proof that this is "trivia" other than "it is a In popular culture... article, and they all have to go". --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Either On the one hand, it's better that they are here in than in the article, remove them from here and they might creep back in. I also feel that in some ways, cataloguing the salient cultural references of a piece such of this can be benefit those that are attempting to comprehend the the cultural relevance of the work. Ring a Ring O'Rosies is evoked up in many mediums.. is enough to say just that without describing what the references are? It is this question which led me to start this article rather than remove all the references willy-nilly from the article itself. This being said, most of the stuff here is trivial by it's nature and may not have a place in an encyclopedia. All other "cultural references to" articles that populate wikipedia should likewise be deleted, though. leontes 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:5 and not a trivia collection. If dont see any notability for this song in popular culture. Corpx 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corpx. Trivial list of indiscriminate information. Resolute 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into the article about the nursery rhyme. Mandsford 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and IPSOS. --Aarktica 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Kurykh 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim eyermann

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

Non-notable sax player; autobiography (he has details on the bottom on how to get in contact with him). The Evil Spartan 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It isn't an autobiography. As TenPoundHammer said, he died on May 1, 2007. The article was written on July 25, 2007. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article doesn't really claim notability, but per his All Music Guide profile, he was the band leader of East Coast Offering, and had an album that made Billboard 's Top Jazz Albums charts. He seems to have played with many notables as well. Also, that e-mail wouldn't be a good way to contact him, seeing as he died on May 1, 2007. His death seems to have gotten some coverage, so this may just pass WP:MUSIC -- but it'd need a major rewrite first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per TenPoundHammer. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Seems notable, but the article is basically identical to his AMG bio, with only a few words changed here and there. As such, needs a complete rewrite. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Just to clarify the notability thing, he was nominated for a Grammy Award twice[6]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Also: I'm busy for the next couple of days, but I'm willing to work on this article in the future, if it's kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per this Corpx 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Grammy nominations and newer sources, but rewrite to avoid copyright issues from AMG bio. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that anybody can be nominated for a grammy. I could nominate my mother for one. It's the people who make it past the first round who are notable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience). The Evil Spartan 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per MastCell and TenPoundHammer. Probably should have been speedied per the alleged WP:COPYVIO by way of AMG. --Aarktica 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Linda Kiraly

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

Unsourced article on a singer who has yet to release a record. Original author has a history of posting unsourced material, copyvios and images of dubious copyright status. Article has already been speedied three times--speedy tag this time was removed without explanation by an anon IP who is probably the original author based on contribution history. I vote Delete and salt (with a dash of paprika given subject's Hungarian ethnicity). --Finngall ^talk 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like an article written only to prove that she exists. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Singer has not released an album yet. Definitely not notable. TheCatalyst31 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it fails the music and biography guidelines. If she ever does something notable, something that garners coverage of multiple, non-trivial sources we can create an article then. Burntsauce 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until subject becomes notable. She hasn't yet released her debut album, according to the article. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. --SkyWalker 10:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator; see below. Non-admin close. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulford

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

Contested prod. This article is about a non-notable youth sports team. It cites no sources, and the ip address contesting the prod claimed that "it was written by the coaches and players themselves", a clear conflict of interest. Since Pulford is also apparently a town of some sort, we may also be able to keep the article, but write about the town instead of the youth team. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed that the best thing for this article would be to replace the writeup on the non-notable youth team with a stub about the village itself. If that's the consensus here, I'd be glad to whip up the entry on the town; I've found several sources with just a quick look around. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm happy to wait for a day or so to see Tony's efforts. --Malcolmxl5 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• already started to clean up the article on Pulford - you are all correct it is a small village on the outskirts of Chester and its history goes back to the Norman Conquest of England (and probably before). I have also cleaned up the article on the Football team by removing the fairly obvious opinion of the writer.
• Speedy keep. Towns are notable. But remove the part about the non-notable youth team. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Since this does appear to be an actual town, then we can obviously keep the article. I withdraw my nomination. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Inforape

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

Non notable neologism. Seems to be all original research. Cites never mention the term "Inforape". Submitted due to discussion on talk page after marked as speedy. Improbcat 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, uncited neologism. --Eyrian 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons I noted above. Improbcat 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, being out of the loop is no reason to attack a valid article Djamur0 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note why this is a valid article. Improbcat 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Term is used in games and irc rooms often, sources that cannot be cited because, for the most part they do not keep logs. Rhynri 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of sheltered world you live in, but inforape is an every day word to me and most other people who explore pages outside of the boundaries of wikipedia. I have friends that use the word inforape, their friends use the word inforape, I talk to people who i have never met before that use the word inforape and anyone that does not know the meaning of inforape (it's almost hard not to find one) should be able to go the the faithful search of wikipedia and discover this term. We are merely providing people with the public service wikipedia stands for

[7]

there is one of the first results on google for inforape.Djamur0 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not built on hearsay. --Eyrian 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And in which case it's just a dicdef, and doesn't belong here anyway. Delete as dicdef, complete lack of sources, so fails WP:V as well.  RGTraynor  20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

hardly from a site built on inforape Djamur0 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Honest and serious curiosity here, what did you mean by this comment? Could you rephrase it as I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that wikipedia is full of inforape? Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• First off, please refrain from personal attacks, you repeated snide remarks are not appreciated.

Secondly the link you provide defines inforape as such :"Inforape is the gathering of personal information, by government agencies, for the express purpose of building a dossier on law-abiding citizens.", which has nothing to do with the inforape article created here. In addition, the article's cites never mention the term "inforape" and as such are note relevant to an article about the term/concept "inforape".

Thirdly, I am not saying(and never have said) the term doesn't exist, or that nobody uses it. What I am saying is that the term is a Neologism, and wikipedia has policies on neologisms and more specifically policies regarding articles on neologisms. And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Fourthly the very fact that the references cited do not contain the term the article is about make this article appear to be Original Research, more particularly the part of that definition stating "applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Fifthly, whether or not I have heard the term before has no bearing on this discussion or not. I hear the phrase "My Bad" on a near-daily basis, and it doesn't have a wikipedia article. Even if the term is in common usage, it is not proper for inclusion in wikipedia until it has been written about by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the palce to promote the use of the term, or information about the term. Wikipedia is the place to write about things which are already notable. Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources; games, IRC and blogs aren't reliable sources, and thus can't be used to verify articles. If you can come up with cites that do fit the reliable sources guidelines, then we'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it... I didn't want to cause a problem. I've created many a wikipedia page, including laying down the initial layout for the Genesis of Aquarion page, which has grown rather large, under different aliases, including Tyrian, and just my ip... I appreciate dj's support, as caustic as it may be. Would a collection of 100 screenshots (of in game uses - irc uses), or perhaps a list of 100 random persons supporting its legitimacy be sufficient to have the article reinstated? I wish to point out the first occurences of "pwn" outside of games/irc/forum posts (generally not searchable) occur many years after the word gained popularity..., and it's references are very recent, despite overwhelming use. Rhynri 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No, almost certainly. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and our specific job is not to highlight things before they receive widespread, mainstream notoriety.  RGTraynor  23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Can you clarify your 'No, Almost certainly?' It's rather out of context... Thanks!  Rhynri  01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I've never heard of it and I get around on the web. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it for things made up in school one day. —Travis^talk 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To satisfy my own curiosity, I [Googled "inforape", there were 31 hits, and of them:

1. five were related to the inforape blog noted above, which uses a different and unrelated definition of the term inforape.
2. fourteen were porn or porn linkspam
3. ten were domain info for various inforape.FOO domains, all of which were parked domains
4. one was a trainer name on a pokemon site
5. one was incomprehensible on google and the link wouldn't come up.

-Improbcat 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Online Dictionary term. --Rocksanddirt 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" from WP:NEO Corpx 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Walt Whitman in popular culture

Walt Whitman in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivia collection, composed of bare-mention references. Gives no further understanding of Whitman or his influence. Eyrian 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as a pure trivia list, just like all the other "in popular culture" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per TenPoundHammer. --Malcolmxl5 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - It is only a list of facts and nothing more. WP:TRIVIA → Hot Dog Wolf 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO; it seems that any cultural reference to Whitman, whether it be the man or his works, is fair game in this unsourced list of indiscriminate info. It's also riddled with OR and POV, and although it may be cleaned up, it's still unencyclopedic trivia. María (críticame) 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What else I have to say like in previous AFD's, same flaws as the others.--JForget 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't think much of arguments that don't discuss the particular article-they amount to saying delete this article because all such articles should be deleted, without giving any specific reason why this article falls within the class. To delete the article it is necessary to show that all of the contents are so totally trivial that none of it can be rescued by editing, and that the article can not be used as a base for a better article on the subject. The nom and some of the comments do at least show they know what the article is about. I suggest the closing admin regard "all such" arguments as if they were made by bots. DGG (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'd ask the closing admin to treat this as the an assumption of bad faith that it is. I, myself, use the 'all such...' argument because I tired of repeating myself of the various reasons why these lists should be deleted, since they are almost always for the same reasons. What can I or any other editor possibly do in this case? Perhaps those who wish to keep the articles should cite something from them or make some argument as to how they can be turned into good articles (I have done this very thing with several of them) CaveatLector^Talk 06:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is one of the weaker "...in popular culture" trivia lists I've seen, which is not encouraging. Most of the references are passing references, and the few that might be notable (the play; the plot device in Dead Poet's Society; the Ginsberg reference; the Bernstein "Songfest" reference, whose link is to an unrelated article) are not worthy of a separate article. (The play doesn't even have an entry of its own in Wikipedia, which suggests it's non-notable; the mention of it here is even less so.) To top it off, only one of the items is sourced, and it is a preposterous entry about a non-notable band that took his name. So what? (The reference for that is to MySpace, which is a pretty good indication of the total uselessness of this article; the only reference on the page is a MySpace link.) Delete this; find some sources for some of the more relevant stuff and add it to the main Walt Whitman article. Horologium t-c 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I fail to see how lines somebody reciting lines from his works is in any makes the case for a popular culture article Corpx 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unstructured trivia, and not worth structuring. Golfcam 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Say what you will about Dungeons & Dragons, Cockatrices, the Four Horsemen, mermaids, Ring a Ring O'Roses, Vikings, the seven deadly sins, the Spear of Destiny, Judas Iscariot, pufferfish, comets, Isis, rayguns, Gehenna, the infinite monkey theorem, marionettes, tarot cards, incest, the Son of Sam, airships, Ambrose Bierce, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Johannes Brahms, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Four Seasons, Goldberg variations, Für Elise, Mozart's Requiem or Wyverns in popular culture. I agree with the nominator on this one. It doesn't add anything to Walt Whitman's achievements. Author is too young to remember that the ABC television series Room 222 was set at "Walt Whitman High School". Mandsford 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vikings in popular culture

Vikings in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Laundry-list of references without any kind of context or analysis. Eyrian 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep and cleanup. these lists are the raw material for good articles so to speak. Prune them, redirect them, but keep the stuff in edit history for future use. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. These lists tend to cause other editors to emulate them, while distracting those trying to create an articles based on sourced analysis (which would have little in common with this kind of list). --Eyrian 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. No sources, OR, nothing but a list of disjointed references. Corvus cornix 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rape and pillage then delete what's left. ←Ben^B4 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think Eyrian's reply means delete, without prejudice to re-creation of a sourced article? DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm never prejudiced toward the creation of sourced articles. Let me state this clearly: I would love for all the articles on Wikipedia to have "cultural impact" sections. However, I think that such sections need to consist of independently sourced analysis, not random appearances in fiction. --Eyrian 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as trivia collection. If some cultural impact is to be demonstrated, this can be done in prose, with references and in the main article. Bullet lists of simple trivia, on the other hand, has no place here. Punkmorten 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not a list of loosely associated articles. Just being about the Vykes is too loose, imo Corpx 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corpx. Resolute 04:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all such lists. Golfcam 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this particular list. To an extent, there is something to be said about the loving depiction of these murderers, thieves and rapists as heroes in popular culture. I don't think anybody would have wanted to meet up with a real Viking. However, this list goes too many different ways-- literature, epic films, sports teams (the Oakland Raiders might be Vikings? Only to the extent that they both started in Minneapolis). An intelligent essay about the difference between fictional Vikings and the real thing would be a good article. Mandsford 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial original research. And I would welcome someone with a good heart to go through Category:Representations of people in popular culture and nominate other such trivia lists. When these trivia lists are part of an article we do our best to get rid of them. They are even worse when set up as stand alone articles. 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion (A7 by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs)) —David Eppstein 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel M. Bolt

Daniel M. Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

University of Wisconsin Associate Professor. No third party sources or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under G12, copyright infringement of cited source. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dattebayo fansubs

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

Non-notable fansubbing group. No reliable sources, so they fail the notability guideline WP:ORG. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG because it only describes the services of that organization/site, not its impact or significance. There are no independent sources which describe any achievements, impact on fansubbing, or historical significance, so therefore it is not suitable for a encyclopedia. Website or organization articles should not be written just to let readers know they exist. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This article has some potential, even if it's merged to fansubbing, because DB is actually one of the largest and most well known fan sub sites out there at the moment. CaveatLector^Talk 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of sources attesting to its notability. I dont think potential is enough to keep it when it doesnt establish notability Corpx 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.--Squilibob 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fansubbing groups, no matter how big, not really notable. Doceirias 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no verifiable, reliable sources to assert its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While well-known to the fansubbing world (well, at least the ones that enjoy Naruto/Bleach fansubs in multiple languages), I agree largely with Sephiroth BCR.--十八 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• MOTION TO CLOSE A previous debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dattebayo which ended with delete. Not only that, but the page was deleted three times in the past, only to survive as a redirect to Naruto--十八 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No independent reliable sources to establish notability. Even though they continue to fansub Bleach and Naruto even if they did claimed to have been arrested at Otakon 2007. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. For the record, I was a fansubber from the pre-digital days and would vote the same on an article about the group I was with. Snarfies 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt it should not redirect to Naruto (as they seem to be big on Bleach fansubbing as well). Or delete and redirect to fansubbing 132.205.44.5 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While they are big and known in the fansubbing specially as they do Naruto and Bleach both popular teenage animes. This makes the article questionable to be deleted or not. I haven't investigated but according to their website they was supposedly at Otakon. Maybe there are sources that could be used and if so that in my opinion would grant the article a keep status. However if it is going to be deleted than no redirect is needed as 'dattebayo' already redirects and 'dattebayo fansubs' isn't directly linked to Naruto other than in name. Lord Metroid 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat ^♫ 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Patricia E. Burch

Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin. No third party sources, or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't list any significant scholarly accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF and I didn't find them myself in a cursory search. Could be speedy delete A7. —David Eppstein 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No longer eligible for speedy deletion after DGG's edits, but I still don't see enough to change my !vote. —David Eppstein 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've found that she is Principal Investigator, for a grant on District-School Collaboration Study (January 1999-January 2002). from the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, for $1.3 Million., and Co-Principal Investigator, for a Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. grant of a half-million. I think this shows a considerable degree of acceptance in the profession. I've added the information to the article. DGG (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant professor with publications list [8] that only seems to include 5 items that have been published so far. I don't see the grant makes so much difference to whether the subject currently meets WP:PROF or not? Espresso Addict 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Fails WP:PROF. I agree that being a lead investigator on a grant is not grounds for asserting notability in and of itself (smacks of inherited notability). Eusebeus 11:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per information discovered by DGG. --Aarktica 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment about grants. lead investigator on a grant is normally the guy whose idea it is, and to whom the grant is awarded based on a peer review of his prior research. Federal grant in the US at least are always technically to the institution, as being the fiscally responsible party, but in practice they are to a person, almost always the director of the laboratory group. Large grants are large because they include support of other investigators; when they get to over $1 million or so, generally postdoctoral fellows as well as graduate students (though this varies from field to field). A grant by itself is not enough--the sort of grant to beginners of $20 or $30 thousand dollars for expenses is routine, not a sign of distinction or accepted reputation. I dont want to suggest a fixed amount for drawing the line, because it will depend on field. Another factor is time--a career investigator award in the US of 5 years or more goes to a very senior person indeed. All in all I said a week keep only, because I think this is the sort of grant where she's more the administrator than anything else. DGG (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion (A7, by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs)) —David Eppstein 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Eric M. Camburn

Eric M. Camburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

University of Wisconsin assistant professor. Although his career is promising, this article lacks third party sources and has not established notability. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under G12 for copyright infringement of the cited source. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins in popular culture

Seven deadly sins in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE), often only referring to a single sin. A popular cultural metaphor that has any understanding buried under a torrent of irrelevance. Eyrian 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Many similar articles include a "Subject X in pop culture" section, and Seven Deadly Sins could definitely use one because of the amount it is used. The section is so large it cannot be included in the main article, so needs to be kept as a separate article. Definitely clean it up and weed out some of the more vague and unreferenced entries (i.e. "'Seven' by Megadeth is a metal song mentions these sins as well." [sic]), but don't delete it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Kill it now for the same reasons that the other "in popular culture" articles are dying -- they're hard to verify; they're pure trivia; they're indiscriminate; they're lists of loosely associated topics; and so forth. I don't know why anyone would vote for "Keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: ditto what TPH said, with a side of WP:OR for comparisons such as: "Pulp Fiction, (1994) - Subtle, underlying theme." Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulp Fiction in popular culture. María (críticame) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, I'm also thinking those images are fair use violations. Corvus cornix 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per 10 lb hammer and all other 'x in popular culture' debacles. CaveatLector^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pure trivia! (WP:5) Corpx 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I only created this article in order to clean up the main Seven Deadly Sins page (which is still in an absolute mess). This stuff should have been deleted then, but there were too many voices on the main page arguing for it to be kept, so a consensus was reached moving the article to here. There is absolutely no reason for it to exist, and it should really have been removed long before now.--Malvorean 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per creator. This article has had other editors so it can't be speedied under that criteria. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- But the classical references should be mentioned in the main article (and they're not "in popular culture " anyway). Saikokira 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - great idea, useful by itself, but the article needs major revision and editing. Bearian 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge The Seven Deadly Sins are frequently referred to in fiction and this is a well-written article. However, if the original author (Malvorean) wants to delete it, that's his/her choice. Since there was only one original source for the Seven Deadly Sins, a merger would be appropriate, although I think it should be limited to those works where the seven sins are woven into the plot. Mandsford 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say only a very small amount of it needs to be merged into the main article, as well. --Merlinme 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard R. Halverson

Richard R. Halverson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin. No third party sources or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Assistant professor, around 10 papers in peer-reviewed journals & a couple of book chapters according to his CV [9] -- not yet evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The only possibility is the CAREER award, but it looks like that's basically just a fellowship for promising beginning researchers. Willing to change my mind if anyone can show exceptional significance for the award. Espresso Addict 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. He has a few papers with high cite counts already, but he's middle author on them, so it's unclear to me how much credit to give to him for them. —David Eppstein 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep due to his NSF grant, but it needs a rewrite. Bearian 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NSF grant winners are not automatically notable - no assertion of activity that satisfies the criteria at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Eusebeus. --Aarktica 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is not an article - it's just a list of loosely associated facts (ie, trivia). The best way to gauge if it's a list of trivia? See how many of its entries falls into the format of "In x, y appears".-Wafulz 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Spear of Destiny in popular culture

Spear of Destiny in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Collection of trivia, rarely using more than the name. Eyrian 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Well written, but full of loosely associated and unrelated topics with little in common except for the spear of destiny. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize notable and verifiable articles that contain a major reference or influence of the story of the Holy Lance and then delete the article. (Best to put the list in userspace after the deletion so this can be done). CaveatLector^Talk 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup the more tangential references. How do "In Popular Culture" articles violate Five pillars? Be more specific. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" Bearcat 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia collection. If some cultural impact is to be demonstrated, this can be done in prose, with references and in the main article. Bullet lists of simple trivia, on the other hand, has no place here. Punkmorten 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting information, however trivial, means too much to some of you to support. Bcarlson33 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Umm, could you comment on the content of this article, and how you feel it meets policy? Resolute 04:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Emperor's comments below sum up why I feel it meets policy - although I'm sure you've noted that I don't exactly subscribe to the policy of deleting information. Cheers, Bcarlson33 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I had, but "Keep, because I don't like deleting things" is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup There are quite a few notable outtings of the SoD. This just needs to be policed with a solid criteria and trivial mentions rooted out, references sought, etc. (Emperor 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
  • But the evidence that that just doesn't happen with these "articles" is overwhelming. Golfcam 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have seen entries of the "in popular culture" that are waste bins for any passing trivial mention which deserve to be deleted. That isn't to say that every "in popular culture" entry should go - they all have to be judged on their own merits. The key is to establishing a solid remit and policing it. The lead makes it clear that it is for prominent roles and this needs to be pursued. I'd like to see the number of items trimmed down and the items expanded on, as is done for the film Constantine. There are other non-trivial appearances of the Spear (the one that brought me here being The Spear which is all about it). Other mentions appear to be trivial - he Hellboy bit is a clear example, as it stands it suggests we see the spear in a cabinet in passing. Set dressing is clearly trivial and (as I've done on other similar entries) I'd move it to the talk page. If someone can expand it to show it's importance to the film (I am pretty sure it is trivial in the film) then it can go back in, with references because if it is not a trivial mention it should be in a review or overview. I think compared to a lot of i.p.c. entries this one is in good enough shape to be cleaned up and made into a solid entry looking at non-trivial parts the SoD has played in media. (Emperor 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete trivia, collection of loosely associated topics, etc, etc, etc. Resolute 04:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Total trivia list. Biggspowd 02:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per Emperor. I admit that I wasn't acquainted with the name "Spear of Destiny", but this, like the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant, is a Biblical reference that is a recurring theme in adventure books and movies. People have been buying into this for centuries. Mandsford 01:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Emperor and Mandsford. There's definitely the potential for a good article here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per Emperor, Mandsford and Josiah Rowe. It's presence and affect in popular culture is not trivial and use of examples would be a relevant way to express this.Number36 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Not as bad as some, but still mostly trivia. Crazysuit 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - another collection of loosely associated things passed off as an article. Otto4711 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)