Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 20

< March 19	March 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as failing verifability. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops[edit]

Unreal Tournament mod that doesn't appear to be particular notable. Its sourceless and googling doesn't bring up any reliable sources. PROD was removed with edit summary: "Removed the note for deletion, for this page is to be used for providing small references related to the game and otherwise, for it is to be experiencing a revival" - I have no idea what that means. It has also been previously deleted as "nn/spam". Delete as failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to a lack of third party sources to establish notability. The awards and distinctions are not notable enough to confer notability to the mod. Leebo ^T/C 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to assert notability. WP:N, WP:RS--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability? Mrmoocow 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads sort of like a game guide, which I'm sure Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Resurgent insurgent 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another game-mod article. Unreal Tournament itself is plenty notable, this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can fix the article, it isn't just a mod, the game was ported to the Reality Engine from Artificial Studios for commercial release as Frag Ops: Zero Squad. That fell through with 75% of the code done when the project leader Squirrel Zero (Matt) walked away. You can find out about the mod from Beyond Unreal's Frag Ops post mortem. The project leader contributed Realtime Shadows code and vehicle code that later showed up in other UT2K4 mods. The original Unreal Tournament 2004 version is being updated for relaunch by Scry (formerly Squirrel Zero) here. I can build it into a notable article but that doesn't really matter now, the consensus has it for deletion. --Basique 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always have it moved to your userspace, work on it there, and then have it undeleted at WP:DRV. Wickethewok 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me working on it here User:Basique/Workspace. --Basique 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done, can my updated version be fasttracked in? --Basique 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously lacking notability and it fails WP:V because of its lack of sources, just external links.Telly addict 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NOT as a game mod, fails WP:ATT for Basique's assertions, and even if correct, heck, the video game industry dumps would-be games all the time; ample precedent holds that they generally aren't notable. Given that the article represents all the mainspace edits of its creator as well, add possible WP:COI to the till. RGTraynor 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. . 11kowrom 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N and Wikipedia:Attribution. Ronbo76 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. -- Wenli 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not policy, but WP:V sure as hell is. Cynical 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, default keep -- although the arguments for keeping were more thoroughly documented. Now suggest that all references mentioned are placed in the article. Bubba hotep 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evol Intent[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC. A quick Google search failed to reveal the group's significance, and they have not been on any charts. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another idiotic band article. YechielMan 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)*Delete per WP:MUSIC. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepThe appearance on the Need for Speed game provides some notability but the article needs better sourcing and citations. StuartDouglas 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree per WP:MUSIC, defintely failing that.Telly addict 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Allmusic.com returns only a single release attributed to Evol Intent [1] that received very little in the way of buzz or sales. The lead Google hits are their own website and their Myspace page, always a deadly harbinger of non-notability. RGTraynor 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND. Ronbo76 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know anything about this band, but from what I can tell, they're signed to and have released material on Renegade Hardware [2], which at least fulfills one requirements of WP:BAND. I, and I think everyone else, would appreciate therefore if the Delete votes were more than just "Fails WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC." Let's not forget WP:JUSTAPOLICY. That said, I'm abstaining from voting for the time being. Rockstar915 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well ... JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, an opinion statement from a handful of editors no more or less pertinent than yours or my opinion. That being said, what criteria listed in WP:BAND do you claim this group has met? Just signing onto a label or "releasing material" doesn't suffice, by a long shot. RGTraynor 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said before, I'm abstaining from voting. I'm not making a claim about anything regarding the band -- I just wanted to point out that the AfD is meant to be a conversation, not a straight up vote. And right now, it's just a vote. People are just citing a policy but not what's IN the policy, and although WP:JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, that doens't mean it's wrong. That's all. Rockstar915 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The label isn't even particularly notable itself. It's some unknown independent label; we're not talking about Virgin Records or something. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:music states that they can have releases on a major indie label. Virgin is not an independent label and Evol Intent is obviously not a group that would be featured on a primetime "build a star" game show. Renegade is one of the most important labels in the culture and has been around for 12 years. Here is a discography. http://www.discogs.com/label/Renegade+Hardware —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ab3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep evol intent is very established and more than qualifies for wikipedia. please research before you comment. please see my concerns below.
STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable source.

many tours in various countries including america, france, england, switzerland, slovenia, germany, and austria. http://www.evolintent.com/banners/evolintentloveseurope.jpg

Lacks a reliable source. The band's own website does not qualify.

Comment Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

renegade hardware. http://www.discogs.com/release/557675 human imprint. http://www.discogs.com/release/297538

The album listed on the second link has no content by Evol Intent.

- - it seems as if people are reading what they want. If you open the second link you'll notice two tracks by EI. CD1 mixed by Dieselboy (one of the most well-known DJ/producers in the scene contains Evol Intent on track-11. CD2 track-4 contains another Evol Intent track.
Comment 6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21300 creative loafing is one of the most established local happenings journals in atlanta.

This review from a website (whose own notability is unestablished) makes no actual claims that Evol Intent is the "most prominent representative" of the local scene. It just likes EI's music.

Comment 10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

(BBC Radio 1)

No evidence of this claim submitted.

Comment 11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

(BBC Radio 1)

No evidence of this claim submitted.

Comment Featured on a multi-platform videogame release soundtrack Need For Speed: Most Wanted

http://music.ign.com/articles/658/658285p1.html http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200510/N05.1013.1241.43093.htm http://xbox.about.com/od/news/a/nfsmwnews54.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ab3 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here's verification regarding playtime on BBC. British Broadcasting is quite a large radio station.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/maryannehobbs/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20051011
Comment RinseMag is a popular magazine in the breakbeat culture. This month's issue features a cover story of Evol Intent noting the producers as a driving force in North America.
http://www.rinsemag.com/press/RNS026/
Comment This article confirms international touring.
http://www.drumandbass.ch/online/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=32
Comment This link contains information supporting a nominee for best breaks/dnb tracks in the Winter Music Conference.
http://www.wmcon.com/idmanominees06.htm Ab3 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as one of the "resident experts" in the DJ/Rave field on wiki, I believe this band passes our notability criteria with flying colors... Per WP:MUSIC:

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

Has charted several times on BBC Radio 1.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Their remixes have appeared on several gold selling albums.

3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country

Has toured in US, Canada, UK, Germany, Russia, France, and Belgium (that I am aware of).

4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

This one is hard to respond to because most people wouldnt consider even the largest selling Drum and Bass labels "a major label" or "important indie label" however they are signed to, and have had tracks published on one of the larger US and one of the larger UK DnB labels (Renegade Hardware discography, Human Imprint discography)

5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Not applicable

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Has become one of the most prominent names in the American Drum and Bass scene.

7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award.

Not applicable

8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Not applicable

9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show.

Need for Speed: Most Wanted soundtrack

10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Has seen significant rotation on BBC Radio 1

11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

Had a 1 hour set on the Breezeblock on BBC Radio 1.

Having passed numerous criteria on WP:MUSIC, they qualify per our standards. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything User:Alkivar said. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the commentary by Alkivar above, this is pretty much an open and shut case. RFerreira 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, blatant copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice 4 candidates[edit]

The Apprentice (US Season 4) from record's being inauspicious. The GFDL violation.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the nom is complaining that it shouldn't have been split from the main article, but the whole thing is copyvio from, eg, [3] anyway. FiggyBee 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you don't even have to go on Google to check for copyvio! Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keene High School[edit]

~~Virtually no verifiable content, and no sources provided. Full of original research.~~ --Slowking Man 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now; I'd say to keep it. Since other users have expressed varying opinions, however, I'll leave this open. --Slowking Man 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this article has one or more reliable sources, it is not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep: Sources have been provided. No more original research. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason to assume that this school is of any importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many high school AfDs closed as "no consensus". ~~But I fall on the weak side of delete on this one because if it really does have an award winning music program, it might be sufficiently notable. In any case, we need some WP:A to keep this.~~ This article, however, satisfies WP:N and WP:A in a couple of areas, so it should be kept. Nice job on this one, by the way. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to say "delete" because there are no sources provided. But I want to say "keep" because it claims to be award-winning in music. But there are no sources for that, so it might be OR. Then again, sources can be gathered through a local newspaper, student government newspaper publications, and probably the site of the music awards they won. :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep primary sources are acceptable in articles about themselves. School's own website provides plenty of reference for the content in the article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are acceptable as additional sources, not as the main or only sources used for establishing notability. Otherwise it would be very easy to make hoaxes or false claims to get into Wikipedia (I'm not saying that that is happening here, I just want to point out that using primary sources to establish notability and to assess importance is strictly to be avoided). Fram 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not being used to establish notability, its being used to verify content within the article. By using your same logic you'd deny whitehouse.gov as a reliable source in an article on the White House. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I agree with what User Ed said, the school might be notable (re: music) but it definately needs more than just the schools own website. A few more references and ill change to keep. LordHarris 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been improved, has quite a few sources, its notable.LordHarris 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, delete. Seems to be non-notable. If more sources are found, especially about the music part of the school, then keep. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no indication of notability in the article -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in the article that establishes notability (which means that there is no way of finding reliable sources). Pax:Vobiscum 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Keene, New Hampshire since most of the stuff here is pretty basic, and I am unconvinced that information about school clubs is altogether encyclopedic. Nevertheless, info on a town's education system is valid so I'll oppose outright deletion. The wish to have independent sources is mostly one of verifiability as far as I can see. Unless someone is seriously contesting the existence of this school, I cannot see why the sources used should be a serious issue. (Dividing schools into "notable" and "non-notable" based on whether a newspaper has or has not happened to write something about them is a poor practice, which is the very reason I have disputed the WP:N guideline.) There does exist an independent source that Barack Obama has used the school to stage a "town hall event" [4], but it is not really enough to establish a fully independent article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Nothing on the page appears to be unverifiable or original research by the definitions of those terms given on the appropriate pages. Please do not confuse lack of sources with unverifiability and original research - this is explained quite clearly on WP:ATT. -- Necrothesp 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't fail WP:ATT. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." This article is not based on any published secondary sources at all, and the claims made are not only descriptive. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and thus this article as it stands has no place here. Fram 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" (italics mine). Nowhere does it say that articles based only on primary sources should be deleted. That is a leap of logic that is unsupported in the policy. The existence of the school is easily verifiable, therefore there is no reason to delete the article. This is a phony deletionist argument that I have seen all too often in the past. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference about a talk by a politician which took place at the school. --Eastmain 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added an external link to the Great Schools Web site. Since every or nearly every high school, at least in the United States, has its own Web site with information on the school, and since the Great Schools Web site has information and individual web pages on all or nearly all high schools in the country, you can always assume that a U.S. high school has at least two sources of information on it, plus whatever you can dig up on Google, Google News and Google News Archives. In addition, with the "No Child Left Behind" act, state departments of education are increasingly posting statistics on high schools on the state DOE Web sites. That should be enough notability for all public high schools in the U.S. It is hard for a public U.S. high school not to be notable by Wikipedia's definition. I think the only reason to redirect a high school article is lack of interest by editors in building up the article and letting the article become a vandal magnet. I argue here that all high schools are inherently notable. Noroton 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up schools are notable but this article is a mess of original research much of which ought to be deleted IMO. Iridescenti 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as is more than adequately describes the school, and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available, that have already been added and will be added to the article to further demonstrate notability. Alansohn 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable school and the article now has the necessary secondary sources. TerriersFan 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Great Schools website. As Noronton says, it lists essentially every school. The information it lists is posted by the school, and the word "great" in the title is an obvious misnomer. It is therefor an uncritical list, and inherently trivial, and cannot be used as a RS for any purpose. Ditto with DOE Websites: they list every school. Noronton argues that this makes all schools notable. I'd say that this is just about as notable as the mere listing on Amazon makes a book notable. They are both indiscriminate lists. The listings on these sites are trivial in the WP sense. Now, if something in such a listing is truly noteworthy, and confirmed by independent sources, that is another matter. DGG 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that the article could be made better by using references and cleanup. -- Wenli 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable. - Richard Cavell 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article describes the subject in a notable light and is adequately sourced according to our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was shoot in the head with an Benelli M3. Headshot!! Daniel Bryant 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood Network[edit]

Vanity article on Australian Counter-Strike server. The 1107 member figure is based on spurious info introduced by 211.30.128.188 (talk · contribs), sFn website suggests six members at most. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources to establish the notability of the group. Leebo ^T/C 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers displayed in article are based on recordings from the Seafood Network's counterstrike server ranking system. Suggested six members are leaders who work on inmrovement of the Seafood Network and administration of servers. There are in fact many more members than this as suggested by information from server console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.167 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007

Comment this is mostly irrelevant to the concerns being addressed, which have to do with a lack of sources. Can you provide any third party sources that talk about the group? Leebo ^T/C 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leebo StuartDouglas 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable. Acalamari 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sow the ocean with salt: This near-to-spurious vanity article is about a website that hasn't seemingly been updated in over a year, according to its main page. There are zero hits on Australian Google for it, if you leave out its own server [5]. Fails WP:ATT, NN, and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. Nice try, guys. RGTraynor 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as new sources cited and various searches have failed to come up with any. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...maelgwn talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously nn. Lankiveil 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Wenli 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, does not meet any of our article standards. Burntsauce 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete' John Reaves (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hondahead[edit]

DictDef, in violation of WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term is for a "gearhead" who specializes in Hondas. In other words, there could be a Fordhead, a Toyotahead, an AmericanMotorCorporationhead, and let's not forget Headrolet. Sorry for that last one. Action Jackson IV 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be. Delete per nom. FiggyBee 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete complete nonsense, meets CSD G1. Please at least {{subst:prod}} it, if possible V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. So tagged. WjBscribe 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq[edit]

Contains speculation, original research, non-encyclopedic, makes many claims not atributable to anyone. It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term. It also violates guidelines for living persons. Also uses weasel words. It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. It is also redundant, and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research. Jfrascencio 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we also have an AfD on Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq from a couple of days ago. FiggyBee 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference All are good reasons to keep working on the article, none are good reason's for deletion. Every country has an article on human rights Category:Human rights by country. The big ones are broken down into smaller articles like this one is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and reference. What the article was previously named is of little importance. Better to put such an obviously important topic on WP:AID than resort to deletion because it has some problems. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give it some time, looks like there is a good faith effort here to add reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are obvious attempts to make this more encyclopedic. Important subject worthy of coverage and this article is getting there. StuartDouglas 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of deletion there should be a main article about Human rights in Iraq and this article can be one of its sub-article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article at the moment looks very much like OR and without the references lacks the NPOV. Condemnation has no place in an encyclopaedia. I notice the article mentions arms dealings with Russia, China and France but fails to note Britain and the USA doing the same. In the current form the article is quite inappropriate. Suriel1981 11:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with the other two human rights in Iraq articles to one article, as per Sa.vakilian --Martin Wisse 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be brought up to NPOV which would include renaming to Human Rights in Iraq. There is hardly an indication that human rights were more respected before Saddam nor are there any that they are after Saddam Alf^Photoman 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf Photoman. The text is also collection pure OR. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete but allow recreation~~ Keep but clean-up Valid topic, obviously, but poorly handled. Pitifully few references. ~~Until someone wants to sort out the whole "Human rights in Iraq" series of articles mess by doing some proper research and reliable sourcing, it should be deleted.~~ Looks like the mess is being sorted. --Folantin 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading the talk page, this series of articles evolved from a single article on human rights in Iraq; a decision was made to split them up. It would probably be a bad idea to merge them back against the wishes of the editors. The POV of the article could certainly use improvement; a comparison of human rights in SH's Iraq to rights in other Arab/Muslim countries of the time might be instructive, for instance. Brianyoumans 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are good points, but even though there are obvious chronological reasons to split the topmost article this way, it also results in a quasi-POV fork, with the pro-invasion group editing this article and the anti-invasion group the other, both seeking to prove their convictions correct. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rightness or wrongness of the U.S. invasion isn't going to rest on human rights violations (other factors are involved: whether the invasion works in accomplishing various goals, whether the costs outweigh the benefits or vice versa, whether the invasion had to be done to stop Saddam's regime from using or getting WMDs or being or becoming a base for terrorists -- all sorts of reasons were given by Bush and others for the war; even bringing democracy to Iraq isn't quite the same issue as how bad the human rights record there was). And there's nothing inherently POV-forkish about separating the vast subject of Iraqi human rights violations into regime periods, since the situation obviously changed with different regimes: Before Saddam human rights were in various states; during Saddam's regime that regime was responsible for a certain level of human rights; after Saddam responsibility shifted elsewhere. The subject naturally divides that way. There is no inherent contradiction in one article describing the Saddam regime's human rights record and articles that describe human rights before or after, and no benefit to combining them that I can see. There is, without a doubt, plenty of sourceable information out there. The subject of the article is too important to delete. Too bad it hasn't been cared for better. The best argument for deleting, to my mind, is that the article shows no promise of being well-edited, despite it's importance and appropriateness.Noroton 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's nothing irrepairable here and the subject is both noteworthy and sourceable (and any comparison of Saddam's regime with any other regime in the Middle East would show just how evil he was, with hundreds of thousands murdered). Noroton 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He was certainly no Boy Scout, but compare for instance the violent suppression of revolt in Syria (involving thousands of deaths), the actions of the army in the Algerian civil war in the 90s, Morocco's actions in the Western Sahara, Turkey's behavior in Turkish Kurdistan, and so on. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his actions occurred in an area of the world where Western-style human rights are not generally respected, and it is fairly common for governments to use force, sometimes brutal force, to suppress opposition, especially from minority populations. We should view him in context. Brianyoumans 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the place for political discussion. As for the article? It doesn't have proof of what it claims. Amnesty International style condemnations are unencyclopaedic. Suriel1981 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also there are no articles on Human Rights in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mubarak's Egypt, Musharraf's Pakistan, Sharon's Israel, Castro's Cuba, Shah's Iran, Bush's United States, Ceasar's Roman Empire, Alexander's Greek Empire, Xerxes Persian Empire, or any other article about human rights in any other leader leader's country article. --Jfrascencio 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the reasons given for deletion are patently invalid:

"Speculation, original research, -- It is merely the collection of published accounts, as with all good WP articles. Calling it speculation seems POV.

"non-encyclopedic" also POV -- its a subject of general interest about which factual material can be found.

'"makes many claims not atributable to anyone" -- Yes, section 1 does need specific sources for every allegation. But they are finadable, so not a reason for deletion.

"It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term." It fgives the sources, and any number of news stories could be added.

It mentions a book about "The Dirty Dozen", which then became a movie, which has nothing to do with Iraq. When referring to Iraq (Iraq's Dirty Dozen), the source of the term is U.S. officials. Just because certain national officials use a term, doesn't mean there should be an article about (i.e. The Imperialist Regime, see no article about it) --Jfrascencio 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It also violates guidelines for living persons." Sourced reports on major newsworthy criminals are not BLP violations--but agreed, it does need sources.

" Also uses weasel words." Thats about the opposite of the previous reason.

" It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. " Another way of saying nonencyclopedic, and I think almost everyone would say just the opposite. That other parties in iraq may have continued some such practices is no reason to exclude this part of the story.

"It is also redundant," apparently meaning the subject is treated elsewhere. But a collected article of this sort makes sense.

"and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research" All said before, and all wrong.

That said, I think it is an outrageously unsourced article for a topic such as this, and there's a lot to be deleted from it. Eds. who workecd on an article on such a topic should try to make it really solid. Thats why I said "weak". And because of the title, but it's hard to think of a clearer one./ DGG 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in Iraq. Don't need to divide up articles like this.--Sefringle 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not OR anymore and it's important enough to keep it separate from Human rights in Iraq as a sub-article. We can put a summary of this article there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, I think this article should be merged into Human rights in Iraq. No reason to single out a single leader that only ruled for 20 years, or Wikipedia will be littered with Human rights in (leader's name)(leader's country) articles. The only reason this article exists is in part of a demonization campaign to promote war. --Jfrascencio 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No good reasons to delete. Lots of problems means lots of fixing. The subject is very important. SmokeyJoe 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is also entirely negative and condemning. (NPOV) It makes no mention of positive human rights practices such as secular government, woman's rights like driving and voting (which isn't allowed in Saudi Arabia), rights given in the constitution, amnesty for those imprisoned, the rights of Kurds to their language being official in Kurdish areas (In Turkey, the Kurdish language is illegal), etc. --Lft6771 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason not to. Robbskey 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted - blatant hoax. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American Maintenance of Bear-Life Association[edit]

How this hoax has managed to survive without references on Wikipedia since August 2006 is beyond me. [6] The name returns 6 hits on Google, all of which are various mirrors of the Wikipedia article. [7] We need a speedy deletion criterion for non-notable hoaxes like this, and we need one fast. RFerreira 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete "NAMBLA" is the giveaway. I agree - there shoud be a speedy category for blatant hoaxes other than nonsense. Croxley 02:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbridge Foundation[edit]

Non-notable organization. Google search on name returns only 62 unique hits on 204 returns, mostly simple listings/directories outside of primary source. Conventions sponsored by group *might* be notable, but group itself does not have citations to establish notability. Delete. MikeWazowski 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient signs of notability. StuartDouglas 10:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. This organization has no notability outside of the conventions it hosts. RGTraynor 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mindbridge is a pretty notable organization. Kopf1988 03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and you believe this because....? Please provide at least *some* kind of citations to refute the argument posted above. MikeWazowski 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons, such as its branch from the founding by an award winning author, its several conventions, and its history. This article also inherits the notability of the SFLIS (unless we create an article about them and sub Mindbridge there??) Together they're notable enough at least. Kopf1988 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Science Fiction League of Iowa Students" brings back even fewer returns (37 unique on 54 total) than does the Mindbridge Foundation. Had Haldeman actually *founded* this group, that might be one thing, but according to your text, his only connection is that he taught a class that some of the people that *did* found the group attended, plus they named it after something he wrote. How exactly does that confer notability on either the SFLIS or Mindbridge? Again, without reliable third-party sources to back up any of this, it's a *very* tenuous claim, at best, and I remain unconvinced. MikeWazowski 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not a reliable test on its own. As for your proof, how about some mentions here and here. I'm sure those can be construed in a variety of ways, but the easiest thing to see is that he either founded or played a large role in the founding. 'Nuff said. Kopf1988 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is nothing but a page full of links, and proves nothing about the Mindbridge Foundation. Your second, while it mentions Haldeman, does not mention the Mindbridge Foundation anywhere on the page, so I hardly see how that proves anything in regards to the notability of the Mindbridge Foundation, which is what this discussion is about. You'll also note that I'm not using the low number of Google returns as the sole basis of my decision - I'm using the fact that very few, if any, of them are from reliable sources. There is a difference. MikeWazowski 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Lots of outfits hold conventions, and as far as Joe Haldeman goes, notability isn't contagious. RGTraynor 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ORG is a guideline, based on consensus(which is also disputed). As such, you can go around beating people in the head with it. Kopf1988 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot come as a surprise that an encyclopedia that works on consensus has numerous guidelines that are, unsurprisingly enough, arrived upon through consensus. If you prefer, I can beat you over the head instead with WP:ATT, which is official policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." RGTraynor 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; specifically, the absence of any independent third party nontrivial secondary sources.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party refs not notable. NBeale 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sawaru[edit]

Unreleased film, no assertion of notability. Vanity article, created by involved party (band member of Evil Adam), who has previously created vanity article on band. Full of NN redlinks. Drat (Talk) 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability with tertiary sources, while also showcasing a conflict of interest. The overwhelming red links are evidence enough that no one involved in this film has yet achieved notability, even though that's not wholly relevant to the article itself. Leebo ^T/C 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Evidence of the Troma release would provide some notability, but at the moment there is no such verifiability StuartDouglas 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete movie not on IMDB, thus failing my bare-minimum criteria for films. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Troma, the one saving factor for this entry, is not releasing the film. At least not according to anything I found. And the film's not even on IMDB, and we all know how easy it is to get on that (*cough* $50 *cough*). :) Rockstar915 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases. Red wikilinks indicate as per nominator's assertion that someone is creating an article to specifically promote this unreleased DVD. Ronbo76 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reputable references and is not notable. -- Wenli 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not on IMDB. --Anthony5429 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, not a single delete other than the nom. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Week in the Woods[edit]

non notable children's book. Article is unsourced, other than publisher's site. This is not an independent source. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. True the book has won some children's awards by library consortiums, but these do not lend the book notability because the awards themselves are non-notable (they don't even have Wikipedia articles). Speedy deleted 3 times, most recent speedy overturned at Deletion review Nardman1 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely absurd at this point. A book which is the winner of countless statewide awards by one of the most important authors for young people in current times. Wasn't able to force a speedy, is now bringing it here? Reviews from all the typical book presses can be dug up if I can find the time at work this week, but it's honestly not that pressing right now. Meets book notability, won piles of awards, enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantially per badlydrawnjeff. This nomination serves no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're showing bias. If this were an article on a Pokemon character or a rap album people would be calling for the article's deletion or at least proof the awards were notable. Nardman1 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Bias in favor of what? Newyorkbrad 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bias because it's a book when a music album would face the actual standards Wikipedia has. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So let me get this straight: you're saying WP is biased toward books and against music?!? That's simply absurd. In fact, if anything the opposite is true. For example, looking at Barnes & Noble's current top selling fiction books, only 2 of the top 5 have articles, wheras 4 of the top 5 in B&N's top music list do. Albums by notable artists aren't deleted, nor should books by notable authors be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to ask - why this book? Of all the books out there to be fixated on, why this one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I caught this book on recent changes a few weeks ago and marked it for deletion. I noticed its re-creation on my watchlist. It was non notable then and and non notable now. Nardman1 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notability is apparent in the numerous awards. How many more awards should be needed to satisfy notability? Leebo ^T/C 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are very few sources for these "awards" outside libraries and the books themselves. No NYT articles or other indicators of notability. The awards themselves are non notable, making them worthless as notability indicators. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notable book by a notable author. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redlinks for the awards chiefly indicate a systemic bias rather than non-notability. If it were just one statewide award I'd be a bit more meh, as statewide awards are not the Newbery or Caldecott, but with this many it's surely notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the awards may be minor but there's plenty of them, which comfortably satisfies notability. — Krimpet (talk/review) 06:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with above, however, this article has no citations, and that should be changed... Smee 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable book by a notable author StuartDouglas 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per others' reasoning above --Martin Wisse 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets 36 Google news results with a careful query [8], including Wash. Post and Detroit Free Press just on the first page. Per looking at these results and the above comments, this is apparently a plenty notable book in its genre. --W.marsh 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is just silly. This is a (multiple) award-winning book by a very notable author, part of a long-running and bestselling series. On the DRV, the deleting admin reported "...called up a trusted reading specialist friend of mine, and was told that this was a high acclaimed book." I simply cannot fathom the reasoning behind this nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What in the pluperfect hell? What the hell does nom mean, this isn't an independent source? Simon & Schuster is a lot more respected and ironclad a source than Wikipedia is, come to that. This book carries an Amazon sales rank of 50,000, its reviews on the Amazon site are from (among others) Publishers' Weekly, the Amazon.com editorial staff, School Library Journal, Booklist and AudioFile. This hits Criteria #1 (on the reviews alone) and #4 at WP:BK and meets the WP:BK threshold standard just from the libraries in Norfolk and Plymouth Counties in Massachusetts alone, let alone anywhere else. Given nom's continuing and vehement defense of this absurd nomination, admins would be well advised to take a hard look at WP:POINT and/or whether this is a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded..., and... - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per every comment above. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Gnan garra 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian novelists[edit]

Nothing more than an alphabetical list that is less than the associated category, Category:Australian novelists. Unreferenced per WP:BLP; even for seemingly uncontroversial lists this is still a requirement. There are better places for redlinks such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do Delete --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep am slowly adding dates, & note, no previous attempt has been made to fix the 'problem' by even suggesting changes such as periodising etc. this should have been done 1st. regards blp, irrelevant as 'novelist' is not a criticism. ⇒ bsnowball 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP is not "irrelevent". Every biographical fact we record should be backed by a reference. Who are we to say what is controversial or not? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless... another person or the author can verify & make the list more interesting than its category. See one of the best lists (;)) on Wikipedia as a guideline - List of dinosaurs. That my friend is a list! If this list can be 1) Cited. 2)Expanded. 3)Made interesting. Then I'd say keep, but until then, delete... Spawn Man 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a request for expansion is for - not an AfD. I'm sure people will do that if you support it, given bsnowball's pledge above. JRG 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is enough. Adding dates and other useless info isn't really going to improve the usability of the list.--Dacium 10:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an article for List of novelists by nationality so this article can be remained, but it should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly a great list, but dates and redlinks save this from being entirely redundant with a category. The redlinks should be in the article space and not Wikipedia space, because if someone searches for "Russell Braddon" without any clue to who this person is, they should at least be given a search result (hope our search function is working) to this page where they will at least find that the person is an Australian novelist. It is sparse info until we can get a full article, but I think lists in article-space (viewed by many) are more fertile breeding grounds for new articles than a corresponding list in Wikipedia-space (viewed only by members of the Australia or literature WikiProjects). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how would they know that Russell Braddon was in any way notable, and not just a vanity entry, and what references are there for him being a novelist? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the caveats added above. --Martin Wisse 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there cannot be any reliable reference for the list. That means it attracts marginal cases and vanity edits. I know a "novelist" who once had a novel published on the internet (I think it was not self-published, but still not available offline). For the "Russell Braddon" example, the other 7 search results are more useful than this one. Bsnowball, if you're doing the research to fill out this table, why not write a stub for the article instead, citing the references you found? Is Arthur W. Upfield vanity or an important part of literary history - inclusion in this list doesn't tell us. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment how about what should have been done before afd? what would a 'proper' list look like? periodisation? (pre-fed, pre/postwar; i am prepared to do this if i know the list won't be deleted anyway) adding informative 'comments'? (also re scott, i'm maintaining the list, so at the moment i decide what's vanity ;) but as a rule of thumb, if they've got a few books in the nla catalogue i leave them in. what do you mean, stub for what article?) ⇒ bsnowball 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grouping by time doesn't make a difference to my opinion. It might for others. What I meant was to write a stub for the novelist at the time you've done enough research to verify their notability. A stub containing: Name (dates of birth/death) is/was an Australian novelist. Some key fact about their life or writing, bibliography, reference list, categories and stub template should be plenty to keep them from ending up here, demonstrates the notability, and gives other editors somewhere to hang any additional information they find. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list being maintained. I assume Arthur W. Upfield is a reference to Arthur Upfield who was a popular writer responsible for the Boney books. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep compares well to List of English novelists, however it could be improved with additional summary information (date of birth/death, most notable title / genre)Garrie 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to refute that concern. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that is true - IMO lists in themselves are only useful in comparison to similar lists. A list of Australian novelists - if it is the only list of novelists - is rubbish. As one of a group of novelists by nationality it becomes much more meaningful.Ga rr ie 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bsnowball's pledge to clean up the article and reference it; and the fact that lists of novelists of other nationalists also exist which would make our Australian content worse than it is at present. This is not really an inexhaustive list: it takes a bit of doing to become a novelists well-known enough to have an article on Wikipedia. JRG 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Australian writers. Generalize it. Usedup 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad idea, then it becomes even more impossible to make a comprehensive list. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if novelists, literary critics, nonfiction writers and such were separated by section headings? Usedup 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list is defined and possible to complete. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph (artist)[edit]

No WP:RS, so fails WP:BIO. Google search turns up nothing, probable WP:HOAX. Leuko 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in New York City and have purchased a work from this artist. While he is not well known, his works have gained something of a cult following and I look forward to seeing many of them on display when they come to the City Reliquary in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The information in this article is accurate and this page should not be considered for deletion.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sah293 (talk • contribs). — Sah293 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sah293 is a new user, but has made edits to other articles and has not edited Joseph (artist) at all, so the previous comment is misleading. Tyrenius 03:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ok, but you saying that you met him is not a WP:RS. Can you provide any evidence that he exists from a reputable, published source? Leuko 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per WP:ATT. I loves me some outsider art but without sources it's just a blog entry. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable without verification. Also, I'm not exactly sure, but Image:Joseph alien abduction.jpg appears to be a copyright violation - it was uploaded without proof of the original artist's permission. +A.0u 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources so notability cannot be verified. StuartDouglas 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The images are likely copyvios as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sheer nonsense. Bus stop 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A reference has been added to the article. I retract my statement that it is "sheer nonsense." I still doubt that one reference denotes notability. But it is something that should be considered. Bus stop 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: That one source is pretty much self-published, and thus not a reliable source... I'm not sure we have satisfied WP:A yet, much less WP:N... Leuko 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such pretention here! Joseph's art is as valid and dare I say important as any subway art created by you or I. Having seen some of this noble creatures art in person I can assure you that god willing it will out live us all!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.253.174.70 (talk • contribs).
Anon's 11th edit. Tyrenius 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. Such condescension here! "This noble creature...". For good or bad, notability needs to be established. I'm sure Joseph's art will out-live me. At the moment, however, without verifiable references, he lacks the notability to be included in an encyclopedia. That's not pretension. Freshacconci 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite the fact that Joseph is not well-known enough to have been published, possibly due to him being homeless and poor, this page should be kept up in a visible location long enough for others to find and update it. Can it be moved so that it is found when "Joseph" is searched, thus giving visitors the opportunity to fill in needed details, such as reputable sources, more life information, etc? I am OK with it having a disclaimer warning that the article is up for deletion, but please at least let it be found so somebody may provide more information if possible. This is an entry that is so far out of the realm of "Google," so please bear with it. Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.116.143.242 (talk • contribs). Tyrenius 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Anon has made only 6 edits, all related to this subject. Tyrenius 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Please sign your input to this discussion with four tildes. Might I suggest that you save the article's content so that if it gets deleted you can more easily recreate it if you get sources to back up the subjects notability? Bus stop 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no second party sources therefore failing WP:A, besides WP:BIO for artists requires independent critical acclaim (none here), the inclusion in a major collection (non here) or that the work is part of a documentary (non here) Alf^Photoman 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO Special Cases. Ronbo76 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly - not notable as artist. Might have better chance as feature of street life in NY. There is however at least one other web mention, which I have added to the article. Also a special Johnbod award for most likeable art in a visual arts related deletion so far in 2007 Johnbod 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete? This is obviously a hoax, we should not waste any more time with this sort of nonsense. Burntsauce 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Burntsauce?" That is obviously not a name for someone credible. Delete his account. Its me sam 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, hoaxes aren't a speedy deletion criterion. And calling an editor not credible and calling for the deletion of his/her account is uncivil, if not a personal attack. Leuko 05:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but I don't think User:Its me sam said anything wrong. It is a perfectly appropriate response. One statement called the art an obvious hoax. The response was to call the user name obviously not credible. I think that is a very economical way of pointing to the fault in the first statement. Nothing uncivil or of a personal attack nature. And, it is not unfortunate that hoaxes are not a speedy deletion criteria. Rather, it is fortunate. Bus stop 13:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most of the keep arguments were based on "this exists" or "this is important" rather than addressing the reason that the article was nominated. --Deskana (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (Dragon Ball)[edit]

Original research synthesis on a concept from the Dragon Ball universe. No information drawn from reliable sources of any kind, as far as I can tell. --Slowking Man 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it just needs cleaning up Imagine if Star War's Force was a messy article, we'd insist it just needs cleaning, rather than deletion. Preceding comment added by User:164.106.13.69. Deskana (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahahaha. See, here's the thing - DBZ will never even be able to compare to the popularity of Star Wars in any scenario. Star Wars is so unbelievably, immensely popular that someone made a Star Wars Jedi training school in Romania. All DBZ has is people putting on big plastic hair and fake Karategi and yelling Kamehameha. Ask someone what "The Force" is, chances are that they will know. Power level? Nope. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You forgot about the continent of Asia
    - No, I didn't. Star Wars has worldwide popularity, and I assure you that shows such as Star Wars and Star Trek are much bigger than DBZ in Asia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ALTtP, I think you are mistaking Popularity for Notability. This is still notable as Dragonball is a very popular universe. Therefore, the argument (albeit crude) is still accurate. StayinAnon 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's barely notable in the series. It's a simple plot device to say who's stronger than who, used for only one and a half arcs. Nothing would be different without it. Nemu 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The difference between The Force (Star Wars) and Power level (Dragon Ball) is "The Force", like the rest of Star Wars, is culturally significant while "Power Level" is not. You can see references to the concept in TV, films and music. There's books on the philosophy behind the concept and its parallels to different religions. And, more importantly, there's documentation of Lucas' inspiration for the concept... Not so much on "Power Level," is there? So, it isn't really fair to compare the two.--Nohansen 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. So much original research that nothing on the article can even verify that the subject actually exists in any form. Also, the list of all power levels in the series is completely unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an anime guide on obscure, unverified concepts.--TBCΦtalk? 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If some independant, fact-checked sources on the subject could be found, I would support stripping this down to a sourced stub, as from my limited understanding, the relative power levels of the characters are important to the customiseable card game and at least the early seasons of the DBZ anime (about a screen's worth, all of which must be sourced). Failing someone with the required interest willing to step up and do that, delete. -- saberwyn 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Also, since the power levels stop after a while, it really isn't possible to expand the article--SUIT 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete There is no reason to delete this article the concept of ki scouters and power levels is a key part of Dragonball Z all the power levels are from reliable sources just because the power levels stop later in the series doesn't mean its not important. no reason to delete this. DBZROCKS 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unverified research. That's a VERY good reason. And from what I hear, Daizenshū's power levels didn't have any input from Bird Studio or TOEI. Most of the content is guide content, and the other content is original research that no one seems to be interested in verifying. Hell, does anything on the article even show that the subject is real in Dragon Ball? No - not a single link, not a single source. None of the images even verify it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily due to OR concerns, although Wikipedia isn't an anime guide, just like it's not a game guide. Arkyan 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I can't believe I'm defending Dragon Ball. The concept is important enough to Dragon Ball to warrant a seperate article. The article implies there's an "official" book detailing this stuff, and the other information is taken from the manga or anime directly. Therefore, I think the article is sourceable and the OR can be gotten rid off, and the speculation can be hacked out. It's a cleanup case, not a delete case, let's give the kiddies a chance to fix it. And while I just know that this doesn't describe anyone around here, just as a note, let's not let personal dislike for the series taint our judgment, mmmkay? Or personal like, for that matter. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nonsense. Acalamari 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it nonsense? its part of Dragonball Z its not a fan made term Akira Toriyama put it in there. So what if the Daizenshu didn't consult Toei or Bird Studio they didn't create dragonball Akira Toriyama did. DBZROCKS 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every anime term warrants an article, you know. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes that is true but this one does, there is no reason for this to be deleted it has the right information and has many other articles merged in. It just needs a bit of a tune up thats all. DBZROCKS 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why does this one warrant an article? Most of it is a guide. Can you give me a single reason why it is necessary that it has an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not a guide its half list and half article thats all. Its necesary because
        
        1.its an important dragonball Z concept
        
        2.Its not just on power levels it also has scouters and Ki/Chi mixed in
        
        3.Its not overrun with fancruft or anything its a perfectally good article.
        
        4.Is there any reason to delete it?
        
        we could easily fix up the article instead of just deleting it. DBZROCKS 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a guide. It is an anime guide on power levels. The rest of the content is original research. This has been at the AfD four times - first time it was deleted, but someone revived it without going through deletion review.
        
        1. It's not important. It's just a detailed description of characters' powers. Is it necessary for us to know that some character has a power level of NINE THOUUUUUSAAAAAAND?
        
        2. The Dragon Ball article can cover ki/chi.
        
        3. It's not? 100% original research and anime guide cruft.
        
        4. Yes. 100% original research and anime guide cruft. That's a GREAT reason to delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not all original research just look at the scouter part. Why would the Dragonball article cover Chi/KI its huge already KI/chi deserves its own page we just need to delete the fancruft. DBZROCKS 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh? I don't see many sources to make it not original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Many articles don't have sources but are still fine just look at Future Trunks. Anywhay the Daizenshu could be considered a source. DBZROCKS 21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Only for content that's going to be deleted, article kept or deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean deleted? the list of Power levels is just fine. DBZROCKS 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it's guide content. Have you ever explained why it is necessary to know every single powere ever recorded in the entire series? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats like saiying why its nesesary to list all the pokemon but we have them all listed. Its not like its listing any power levels that were not stated in the manga. DBZROCKS 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How are numbers more important than "characters" in a very popular franchise? Just give it up. You're just grasping for straws at this point. There are no possible references beyond basic "ki=energy=pl" things. Nemu 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        what? I never said they were more important than the charecters. But they are important. They measure a charecter's power. Also its not just numbers it has scouters and Ki in there too! DBZROCKS 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not important in the least. They're just a plot thing to show who's stronger than who used for one and a half arcs/sagas. The rest is unimportant also, and can be cut and placed elsewhere. Nemu 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok so they may not be uber important but can't we just list them delete the repeditive stuff expand the scouter section and call it a reborn article? DBZROCKS 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, if power levels are important, does that also mean that the base stats of each Pokémon are too? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        don't take this personally but thats just rediculus base stats of pokemon are completely random. There are 400-something pokemon but there are only 40 or so power levels max stated in dragonball. thats a huge difference. DBZROCKS 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not random. A Pikachu at level 1 has the same base stats as another Pikachu at level 1. The sun setting is about as random as Pokémon base stats. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well actually Pokemon Base stats are on some pages I think on manaphy and a few others. you know pokemon base stats wouldn't be so bad on those pages good idea. DBZROCKS 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that it is guide content. It is not necessary to know their base stats. That's content used for forming a great Pokémon team. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes but its a video game any information will probably help people play the game. Guide information would be more like a good move set for a pokemon or what abilities are best, stuff like that. DBZROCKS 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You have not shown any necessity for there to be a list of every recorded power level, so why are you even arguing anymore? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        its useful information though if it needs to be deleted at least keep the upper part of the article with a little tune up it could be pretty good. DBZROCKS 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        help! I am being squashed against the right margin! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grutness (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The page is fairly pointless. It seems to just be various paragraphs restating information in slightly different ways. One relevent paragraph can just be salvaged and merged elsewhere. Nemu 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merged to where? we have no article like this anywhere else. DBZROCKS 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, I don't know, how about the giant attack page that we have? Nemu 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know but that page is seriously out of control and its a list of attacks not an article explaining Ki. NOt all attacks use Ki/Chi. we seriously should just keep the article and fix it maybe add a couple of sources. DBZROCKS 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's actually an important part of the series. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And no reason has ever been given to explain WHY it's important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason has been given to why it isn't important. DBZROCKS 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you gave us anything to shoot down, we'd provide proof that it's unimportant. However! You have not done so. So you don't have to prove anything, but we must prove everything?
    - Fun question: What would change if power levels did not exist? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your forgeting no powerlevels means no Scouters. many charecters can't sense chi.

ex: this is the Conversation between Goku and Ginyu before they fight

Goku: Whatch my power level

Ginyu: Whats this 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000

Ginyu: 120,000 and still rising!

Ginyu: 180,000!?

Goku: Thats nothing compared to when I use my power in bursts

Ginyu: Bursts!?

Now try this version with out powerlevels

Goku: Check my Aura

Ginyu: hes turning red

Ginyu: Redder Reddest!

Ginyu: now he's really red!

Goku: This is nothing compared to when I use my power in bursts!

Ginyu: Bursts?!

see? The absense of power levels changed the whole conversation! DBZROCKS 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they acknowledge power levels does not equal importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me explain this to you. many charecters like Nappa, Freeza and Captain Ginyu cannot sense KI/Chi so they have scouters that let them see how strong charecters are via numbers. These concepts are interwoven with Ki/Chi MAJOR AND KEY concepts to Dragonball and Dragonball Z and GT. You also state that the list of Power levels should not be there. thats like not listing how fast a rocket can go (given that the number is recorded) or how many episodes are in an anime. Its not mega important info but at the same time it is not info that no one cares about it is enyclopedic and factual not a bunch of fanon garbage. The Daizenshu in fact consulted Akira Toriyama on the stuff they put in there it wasn't a bunch of Japanese Fanboys who decided to make a dragonball Z book. The Bottom line Power Levels are important and Factual and true. Period. DBZROCKS 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power levels are important in showing the character's current power. If they did not exist, the only difference is that no characters would KNOW your power level. Are you implying that the plot would be different without the lack of power levels? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you just totally ignore the 7 lines of text up there? (no offense) The plot would be differnt without Powerlevels because powerlevels are bascially showing your chi/Ki They would know ki/Chi exists because if they didn't there wouldn't be any scouters. Powerlevels are not a complete plot device; they are there to let the reader how strong a charecter is in numeracal form. We should list them for the sake of completenes. DBZROCKS 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CONVERSATION ABOUT POWER LEVELS IS NOT IMPORTANT. And no, we should NOT list them for the sake of completeness. Under your logic, everything that ever existed or ever could exist should be listed simply to make Wikipedia complete. So what, if there were no power levels, Vegeta would have killed everyone and Freeza would rule the universe and destroy Earth before Buu or Cell could become? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok forgeting the beforementioned conversation about powerlevels what is wrong with powerlevels they are in the manga and are a key part of DB and DBZ and DBGT they help the reader understand exactly how powerful a charecter is instead of "What powerful Chi/Ki" no they don't have a direct effect on the plot they help the reader. DBZROCKS 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They exist" isn't an argument for inclusion. It needs to be verified. --Deskana (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept is not as important to Dragonball as people may think. It is not used during the DB half of the series, and it is only relevant to the Saiyan and Freeza arcs of DBZ.--Nohansen 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment yes but that article doesn't just cover power levels it also covers Chi/Ki a key DRagonball Concept. DBZROCKS 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Ki is part of other martial arts anime or wuxia film, but you don't see them giving a personalized definition of it. Besides, that's what the Qi article is for.--Nohansen 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chi/Ki in dragonball does much more than real life Ki/chi it lets charecters use energy attacks, determines thier power etc. DBZROCKS 11:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this level of detail is better suited for a wiki dedicated to the subject. Mr. Berry 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference to how this fictional concept fits into the real world. Fictional concepts are not separate from their source material unless they have some sort of importance outside of their fictional universe that is at least partially separate from their source. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What? DBZROCKS 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that wasn't clear. To simplify: an encyclopedia articles must cover the out of universe significance of a subject. This article does not. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that this article needs to have information about the significance of powerlevels in the real world? DBZROCKS 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should have sourced information regarding the cultural significance of Power Levels if there is any. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see that kind of material in a lot of pages, many fictional pages do not really need this kind of info. In other words its not really worth deleting a page over. DBZROCKS 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? That does not mean that they don't require sources and OOU info. It just means no one has bothered to do anything about it, or they have none, like this page. A page is required to have them; if there's a good possibility for them, the page is kept, if not, it's deleted. Nemu 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!! I was trying to say the same thing but you beat me to it. :) --Daniel J. Leivick 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see well I guess since there are no web sites that foucus on powerlevels and the Daizenshuu isn't an internet source I Guess I'll have to give this up. Thanks for letting me see where I was going wrong. Thanks :D DBZROCKS 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, has minimal sources and much original research. Although it's clear the author(s) put a lot of effort into it. Is there a Dragonball Wikia yet? --Merovingian ※ Talk 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is one. I'm pretty sure they have this over there already. Nemu 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey then. --Merovingian ※ Talk 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without power levels, Dragon ball plots would be without sense, Toriyama used it since Dragon ball and all the Saiyan Saga and Freeza Saga, the concept of ki is real in Asia, and other mangas use similar " inner power" to explain the grow of charaters strengh, in real world the more we train, more fit and strong we are, thats is the teaching part in Toriyama´s Dragon Ball manga, never believe you are the best, you allways find someone that is better, so keep improving your abilities, i am done, the article only needs improving in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ykkifenix (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately this does not address the WP:V concerns. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manga is the principal source for the power levels until the Freeza Saga, this is a fictional page, so is hard to find more sources than the manga itself.

Where are the references in the article? --Deskana (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Influence on other series" section: Saint Seiya came before DBZ; so it be kind of difficult for DBZ's concept of "Power Level" to have an influence on it.--Nohansen 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, DB run since 1984 and saint seiya since 1986. but yes it does not influence it.

Keep This is relevant to a massively popular manga/anime series. I have used this article myself for research before. Just needs cleanup, which I'm happy to do.StayinAnon 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge This is an important overarching concept to all the Dragonball series of manga and anime and as such would be hard to merge into just one of the articles it affects. It is also important to other post-Dragonball martial arts manga/anime such as Naruto etc. I propose merging only the fighting strength aspect into a new section in the Qi article under a heading called something like Qi in fiction. The long list of Dragonball power levels should be excised as it is hard to verify.[ie Wikipedia:V ] Coder Keitaro 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Daihenzu is the reason for which many of you want to delete this article, we can erase it and keep all the numbers that are in the manga, some ask for more references and sources, but for example Kripton, the planet when superman has born, has his own wikipedia page. Where are the reference or sources, besides dc company?, and somebody wrote that the force was explaining by George Lucas and has a book and everything, Who anyway can prove that the force exist? its all fictional, if this page was made in Japan i bet nobody will suggest to delete it as nobody would touch Planet Kripton from superman.

Strong Keep BrenDJ 15:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe we can add small sections to character pages and lists listing their PL instead of having the list there. -DDF 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a wonderful Idea. DBZROCKS 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, here's what you miss - power levels are unencyclopedic on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I believe this article should exist in it's entirety (with some obvious cleanup). However, if we are forced to merge (even though it seems like we won't be reaching a consensus here) this is clearly the best action to take as the power levels are certainly notable. StayinAnon 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, they aren't. This isn't a dumping ground for every anime guide in the universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Dragon Ball is not just any anime, is the most popular manga-anime in the world. Europe, South America, Spain, France, Asia,etc. and even in your country. That you dislike it doesnt change the fact that millions love it, and even if the power levels numbers are erased, the article could stay.

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb[edit]

Neutral for now, but it has been raised that this person may not be notable. Avi 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) *Delete I see nothing that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). One interview in the New Yorker does not make her body of work significant or well known. -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep with no prejudice to renomination shortly if not enough work is done Enough work has been done that it now appears that the article may be able to be expanded into something that will satisfy WP:BIO. It would fail as it is now, but I'd be willing to give it some more time. -- Avi 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Next time, use prod instead of delete. If prod got delete, then AFD it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Being a published author and tenured professor that has been quoted by the New Yorker makes her notable enough for a stub in my eyes. NeoFreak 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it peculiar that there is no one that is arguing in favor of the deletion of this article, yet we still have the nomination for deletion article. I would keep this article for now.Bless sins 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable? What have they done that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person is not well-known enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 07:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - even I've heard of the New Yorker, and I'm from Palestine! This writer deserves to have an article --Asucena 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Simply having an article in the New Yorker is not grounds for notability.

Merely having an article does not fulfill this criteria. -- Avi 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets the first criteria as having been interviewed and then quoted by the New York as an expert on the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Am I missing something? I've also removed the criteria example from the main talk space for ease of reading as it is already linked too. I hope this isn't a big deal, restore it if you wish. NeoFreak 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead, it seems, so there is no way to tell if she is considered a significant expert. Not every interview in the New Yorker makes someone a "significant" expert, we ALL know that by now

. So not only do we not have notability, the article is unsourced! -- Avi 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the online New Yorker article was dead, but there was a way to tell what was in the article. Until someone deleted the date and title of the New Yorker article from the article, while this discussion was under way. Which version of the article are people voting on? (SEWilco 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is still there under reference #1. Even so, that one article does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Avi 11:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "still there". It is there again, after being re-created after deletion. (SEWilco 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete not notable enough to justify article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete at last as a scholar. She is or was an Assistant professor--and they are not usually notable. She has published one book and given one interview. That is simply not enough in the academic world. If there's a good deal more more, she might be--but its is not in the article. If the book is particularly notable , she might be, but i see no information about reviews. Many subjects of New Yorker interviews are notable, but that's because they have done other things too. No prejudice against re-creation if information is forthcoming. DGG 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:BIO--Sefringle 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per recent sources added--Sefringle 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP All this nit-picking can be used to improve or expand the article and is better suited for the discussion page, not here. To delete it denies the fact that this is a potentially useful (however small) collection of links and information on the subject, the primary reason for the existence of Wikipedia, which should not pretend to be a Britannica as the editors do not have sufficient academic standing. To pretend otherwise makes Wikipedia a useful mule parading as a race horse, which it most certainly is not. --MBHiii 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a different conception of notability standards than does wikipedia itself. Being that this is wikipedia, and not anyone's personal website, we should conform to wiki's guidelines, barring exceptional circumstances, which in my opinion there is no reason for here. -- Avi 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I just think all this is an immense waste of time that'd be better spent trying to improve the articles themselves. Under "Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." a redirect to a Criticism sub-heading under Hezbollah may be best. --MBHiii 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds 23,000 results for her name. Anyone find more information in there? (SEWilco 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. In addition to the NYorker interview, there is an interview with Democracy Now, one with NPR in July 2006, and another with NPR in August 2006. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has 26,000 ghits] which may not be enough for notability on its own but definitely pushes it over the edge. NBeale 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Gaulton[edit]

non notable hockey player, not much google wise,[9] an ip editor removed the prod tag without a reason. don't meet notability for Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) Paloma Walker 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, myself, no doubt that this gentleman exists -- the problem is that the article neither establishes him by a cited source, nor does it make clear, to a casual viewer, what it is that maeks him notable. For these reasons, delete -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability made by article. Mwelch 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert the notability of the person, and the article is badly written (more like personal advertising). -- Wenli 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines, the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, and specious arguments that the process isn't valid ("no reason given for deletion" when a reason was plainly stated at the top here, and "it was kept in the past" when consensus can change). >Radiant< 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party minigames[edit]

This is a game guide article that is much better suited for a gaming/fan wiki. Explaining how to play each and every mini-game isn't a notable subject for Wikipedia. It should be noted: many of these Mario Party lists were in AFD about a month ago (with a result of no consensus). Since then: there has been little improvement to keep them looking like game guides/how to play guides. RobJ1981 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs or a gaming wiki. Also, there aren't any sources or references in the article to verify any of the minigames.--TBCΦtalk? 03:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic. Being unsourced is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be sourced. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How will you fix the fact that level/mini-game lists don't warrant articles on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What? Who says level/mini-game/small organizations in books lists don't warrant articles on Wikipedia? McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because a list of levels and list of mini-games is guide content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you show that by any reason besides "Delete as cruft"? McKay 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, because being cruft isn't good enough. Hmm... Let's see... Besides the fact that it tells you how to beat the mini-games? Well, besides that very, very good reason to get this off of Wikipedia, I got nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, being cruft is not good enough. Please take a read at the essay on WP:CRUFT. No policy there, just that some people think cruft should be removed. I'm merely stating that we should stick with policy, and not precedent. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And how can you even argue that lists belong on Wikipedia when both Rayman RR and Monkey Ball Wii's were deleted for not belonging on Wikipedia? Only reason the MP lists survive is because of WP:ILIKEIT. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, personally, I don't like it, but that's not a reason, I'm fighting it, beacuse *I actually think that the article's existence is in accordance with wikipedia policy.
        What policy suggests that we should have a list of levels or mini-games? There is a ton of precedence saying that we SHOULDN'T make articles like these. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        okay, I'll say it again. I believe this article should stay, because it is a notable topic that could contain encyclopedic information. Because the article can contain (potentially encyclopedic) information that doesn't fit in the main article. Also, precedence is more along the lines of WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Let's stick to policy, okay? McKay 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you even read the links you just gave? Those aren't policies. Those aren't even guidelines. They're essays created by Wikipedians. You've more or less agreed that the article in its current state is not encyclopedic. So how many reasons can you give to say that Mario Party deserves a million lists of mini-games teaching people how to beat the mini-games, but no other mini-game game can have one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't believe that the article in it's current state should be nominated for FA status, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted (see WP:POINT). I think that the article has potential to be a great article, if people will put some time into it. I've put more time into rebutting your concerns than fixing the article, and I've made it better. But there's still room for improvement. Yes, things from WP:ATA are essays. But they're good ideas. I think its funny that you're criticising me for quoting essays (after you did first from that page), when the effect of my statements is "lets stick to policy." McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No external verification of the information. No sources provided (and if they are, they should be external to the game itself). Content (methinks) would be better suited to a gaming-related wiki, a Mario-related wiki, or a Gamefaqs-type website. -- saberwyn 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic. Furthermore, just because information is elsewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I tried to find a source but there was none for any N64 games. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There is no reason to delete these articles. Mario Party is a MINIGAMES GAME!! No-one wants to know about the story, only the minigames. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assume that no one wants to know about the story. –Llama man^talk_contribs 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else. So people will want to know about minigames over the story. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't to further a point of "minigames are better than story", if someone wants an article on Mario Party story they're welcome to create one within the guidelines of WP:NOTE, and WP:RS... McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has provided no reason for deletion. Information is to big to fit in normal articles for games. Nominator should post links to past AFDs. Non concensus is keep and as the nominator says, nothing has changed - so still keep.--Dacium 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs some clean-up, but it's a valid and worthy article. Mrmoocow 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dacium --W.marsh 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A link to the prior AfD's would have been great, but all the same the concerns are still valid - this article is completely unsourced. This really is material more suited for a FAQ than an encyclopedia. Arkyan 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unsourced is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be sourced. McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the onus is on the contributing authors to source an article, not on me to prove that it can't. I quote directly from WP:ATT - The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. Arkyan 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should note that in accordance with WP:ATT, I added sources to the article. I wasn't meaning to say who has the burden, but what the question of burden is. You shouldn't even be saying "We must delete becuase it doesn't have sources", you should be saying "We must delete, becuase this is unsourceable" Which, now obiously can't be said, because I've added sources. McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic list article that fails WP:NOT as a game guide and WP:ATT as having no sources to back its assertions. NeoFreak 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article *can't* be encyclopedic McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: No reason to delete, lisrcruft is not a good argument. Henchman 2000 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted. There has been some discussion as to whether this article (and the 8ish others like it) are encyclopedic or not. I'm sorry, but the policies regarding this are in favor of this article. The most common reason others have with regards to this article is Wikipdedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, it doesn't say that we shouldn't have listcruft like Minor Slytherins, but that if we're to have lists of things like this that it should be encyclopedic information. We use AFD not to say something isn't encyclopedic, but to say that something can't be encyclopedic. All of these Mario party minigame articles *can* be encyclopedic. so quit your complaining, and make it right. (yes, I was drawn here by a small canavs. I'ven't even played this game, so I don't think I'm the right person to fix this article, but I'll see what little I can do. You should probably do the same.) McKay 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, possibly merge? I've read the article, and I don't think it merits deletion. It does need some heavy clean-up and additional external links and sources, including limiting recommendations by the wiki-editor to the article reader, that's unencyclopedic. Consider merging the most important and notable info to the Mario Party article. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to user McKay, wouldn't it be easier to just express your view of wiki-policies in one comment and vote, instead of responding to each editor's "delete" argument? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did gather my thoughts in one place, but for gathering WP:CONSENSUS I think it's helpful to respond to the individual comments directly. McKay 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (As you can see, many of the individual contributors have defended their votes in different ways.[reply]

Strongest delete ever. Why does this deserve an article more than "List of levels in Super Mario 64"? Give me a single good reason why it is necessary for there to be a list of mini-games on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say that there shouldn't be an article on the "list of levels in SM64". I think that if SM64s page got large and there were encyclopedic information to be place there (and I think there could be), then there should be an article on the list of levels in sm64. Why should there be a list of mini-games on wikipedia? Because there is potentially encyclopedic information about these levels. Like maybe what people think of certain video games, or which games make better drinking games, or awards, or novel uses of the controller to do things in strange ways, or which ones give you blisters. There's a bunch that could be written about these games, the hard part is finding the information that can be cited according to Wikipedia Policies. But there is definitely not a lack of "encyclopedic" information on the topics. McKay 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The subject - PERIOD - is not encyclopedic. SM64 doesn't have a list of levels because the FA determined that it should not have a list of levels in any way, shape, or form. And which mini-games are the best drinking games or which give you blisters the fastest are NOT encyclopedic subjects. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do you say that games giving you blisters is unencyclopedic? McKay 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to say it? I honestly have to say why I say that telling the readers which games give you blisters and which don't is unencyclopedic (and original research and POV for that matter)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it is encyclopedic, and no, it's not OR or POV. (unless the BBC is now OR). McKay 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that games give people blisters belongs in the MAIN article. Are you going to find a source for each and every individual mini-game to say that it gives people blisters? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we had information on which games gave people blisters, that would be something to add. Like I said before, all I was saying is that there is encyclopedic information on these games, and finding the information according to wikipedia policies is the hard part. I don't plan on being a major contributor to this article. I merely am trying to contribute to the consensus. I believe that the article can contain encyclopedic information. Which is what the AFD is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)
        OOh, I found it! which games give blisters! McKay 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This can easily be described on a gaming wiki, but in my opinion people are just being difficult and demanding it must be here. It's cruft, plain and simple. As A Link to the Past has said: it's not encyclopedic, and is similar to articles on levels. Wikipedia isn't a place for game guides, and that's what the mini-game articles are. Even if they are purely just listing the games: it's still listcruft. Take Monkey Ball and Rayman as recent examples: both had list pages in AFD, that were deleted. Does anyone have the links for them? If those can be found, it's proof this type of content isn't wanted here (except by a few users). Also: these list pages stem from a major conflict at the talk page of Mario Party 8. The majority were against listing each and every game in the article: so a few users decided to just make these list pages with little to no consensus. I think the logic of "it's not wanted in an article itself, so branch it off to a list page" is a bit of bad faith. Users failing to understand the majority doesn't want it, is simply not helping Wikipedia. RobJ1981 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that that's a perfect reason, see WP:SIZE for more information. Please WP:AGF. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it. The article is not attempting to give advice for each of the minigames, as a game guide or GameFAQs would do, but instead is just informing about each of the minigames. There is no reason to delete it.
- User has very few edits.
- Also, there is a reason if no one can show that this list is necessary. Also, it's notoriously unsourced! - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: McKay has just sourced the article. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, the article's importance still has not been defined. Is there a single reason why this content is necessary on Wikipedia, but SM64's levels aren't? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it is (or could be) information that people care about, that's too large and unweildy to put into the main article. McKay 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - People care about information on how to beat games, but we don't put that information on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I'll be more precise: Because it is (or could be) information that people care about that is is encyclopedic, conforms to WP:NOT, but is too large and unweildy to put into the main article. It is very hard to distinguish from the bajillion pages on the Internet which ones are actually Mario Party 1, because it's not officially called Mario Party 1, and "mario party" returns too many search results. McKay 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia doesn't exist to make your life easier. Its sole purpose is to be encyclopedic. Just because it's hard to find a list of Mario Party mini-games does NOT mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (and Hell, how is it hard? GameFAQs anyone?). - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't very clear before. I meant to say not that its hard to find this content, but it's hard to source the article with reliable sources. Sourcing Wikipedia articles is hard (particularly when there isn't a search term that doesn't include 9 sequels). And just because it's hard to source doesn't give us a reason to give up on the article. Writing an encyclopedia is hard work. We shouldn't give up on an article because it's hard work. McKay 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles get deleted if they can't be sourced. And I want it deleted because the content is of no worth. IT IS GUIDE CONTENT. For the love of God, what about that do you not understand? There is precedence to NOT have articles like this, there is absolutely NO precedence that suggests otherwise, and throughout this conversation, you've been waving around the "people like it" flag but never actually explaining why this is encyclopedic! Levels aren't encyclopedic, but a list of mini-games with a basic guide to explain how to beat them all are encyclopedic? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Articles get deleted if the can't be sourced. This AfD has shown that the article can be sourced. Precedent means nothing. Lets stick with policy. And I have been explaining why I think it's encyclopedic. and I have helped the article to make it more encyclopedic. Also, I've said before that there's nothing inherently unencyclopedic about levels. It's possible that the levels in SM64 were encyclopedic at it's AFD. That doesn't mean that all levels are unencyclopedic, or that minigames are unencyclopedic. McKay 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what policy do you use to defend this article's worth? What one says that the only game in the world that can have a list of levels/mini-games on Wikipedia is Mario Party? Seriously, I am sick of this. When will you explain to me why this article deserves to be on Wikipedia SO much more than List of (insert any game in the world) levels/mini-games? No other game series has such lists. NONE. Absolutely none. And yet, of course, for literally no reason whatsoever, THESE 8 mini-game lists are magically notable. There was no reasonable consensus over its creation, just a small group of people agreeing on it with no input from anyone else. Rayman RR's list of mini-games wasn't notable. Super Monkey Ball BB's list of mini-games wasn't notable. Explain to me why the List of MP mini-games is different. Explain to me why telling people the objective of every mini-game in the list is necessary. What encyclopedic value does this have? WHAT? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION OF YOURS SEVERAL TIMES: Because articles have been written about them, because some of them gave rise to a class action lawsuit (which spawned several articles), also please refrain from using WP:WAX. Should we drop the article on U2 just because almost all of the other bands that formed that year are not notable? No, we independantly check to see whether U2 meets the criteria. Precedent means absolutely nothing. Let's stick to policy. I have shown the primary notability criterion, namely that several, independant, non-trivial articles have been written covering them. There is a different hypothesis different than the one you're proposing -- maybe all those other articles were deleted because no one actually considered policy, maybe no one cared enough to do any research on whether articles had been written about them, maybe they didn't actually have articles written covering them. Precedent means absolutely nothing. Attack the facts ma'am. McKay 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When you haven't shown why this list of mini-games is particularly notable, or why it is necessary for it to be on Wikipedia, the fact that every other non-Mario mini-game list has been deleted from Wikipedia means EVERYTHING. If you can't show that it deserves to be on Wikipedia more than those deleted articles, under what argument do you vote keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have shown how it's better. On several occasions here, and on the articles page and on the articles talk page. Because articles have been written about them, because some of them gave rise to a class action lawsuit (which spawned several articles). Are you not reading these statements I keep placing on this page? I've said that it's encyclopedic. The minigames were notable enough to warrant a class-action lawsuit (and articles have been written about that lawsuit). Is this not enough for you. You seem to be ignoring this fact, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. McKay 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the design of a mini-game causing damage to peoples' hands and thusly resulting in a law suit does not make the mini-games notable. That's the silliest notion I've seen today, that because people sued over damage from playing certain mini-games warrants that a list of mini-games be made for them. Mario Party 8, 7, 6, 5, and 4, none of those have this problem. So why are they notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, I would like to thank you for actually discussing the reasoning. You seemed to have missed that for the past dozenish posts. So, I think the information about the blisters is encyclopedic. In fact, you even seemed to imply that you supportted it with a caveat that has since been met. What would you qualify as encyclopedic information? Could you tell us why you think that it's silly? We hear about lawsuits about several other products, and those get put into wikipedia. Soemtimes the lawsuits themselves are enough to bring an entity to notability. Also, I merely presented blisters as one kind of information that could be encyclopedic. You challenged that one, so I showed an article, then you challenged how it didn't list the games specifically, so I found another source which did list the games individually, and you were silent on that issue for quite some time, now you're saying it's silly, and that seems to be a very subjective perspective, so I'd like more clarification. McKay 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So hey, guess what? We don't make articles on Magnetix's individual pieces just because they got sued over them. Similarly, Mario Party is notable for getting Nintendo sued over it, not the content of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        that's because there's nothing else to say about the pieces individually. Many of the minigames in MP have been mentioned in articles. Also, several of these minigames could be notable for other reasons, It's hard to come up with criteria for a game that I'ven't ever played, but in other minigames games, the minigames could be notable for being the first time two people shared a single controller, or maybe it's notable for being the first time a controller is used as a lasso. There's a bunch of thigns that could be said about these minigames. I don't think there's anything particularly notable about the levels in SM64, and people don't write about the levels much in articles, but because of the unique nature of minigames games, people talk about the minigames themselves a lot, particularly in a game review. Some of those mentionings might be trivial, but others won't be. McKay 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Suing over a game's content does not make the content notable. What about suing over Kadabra's swastika-like symbol? Or the scene that caused seizures in that Pokémon episode? MP is more notable for the lawsuit, not the mini-games. Also, Rayman and Monkey Ball's mini-games are mentioned in reviews and articles (Monkey Target, Monkey Bowling, Monkey Golf, Monkey Racing, etc.), so your argument of "getting mentioned in reviews and articles" doesn't hold water. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because no one brought up that point in the AfD doesn't mean it can't be used in this one. Hmm, you keep comparing this to other articles, I don't particularly like that, and I've expressed it on several occasions, so i'm going to do it because that seems to be how you think best. Can you tell me how the list of MP8 minigames is less notable than Minor Slytherins? AFAIK, most of them have trivial postings in other locations. What do they have that's so much better than these minigames? McKay 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You cannot use my argument for MP. See, the existence of an article does not necessarily dictate that the article is appropriate. However, the fact that articles that are no less worthy of being on Wikipedia were deleted says that these lists don't deserve to be on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Important question: Do you think Minor Slytherins should be deleted? I know that that's not the issue at hand, but I need to know for the purposes of the argument. You're right, the fact that it's there doesn't mean it should be there, but we can't have an AfD resolved in time for this discussion (see also WP:POINT), so I'm willing to concede to your judgement on this matter and use it to continue the discussion. McKay 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's more like an extremely unimportant, trivial, and irrelevant question. Minor Slytherins has nothing to do with this AfD whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me be the judge of whether or not it's relevant. Could you please tell me whether you think that article should stay or go? McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are just seeking to make a WP:POINT by saying "if that article gets to stay, this one does too!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What‽ That's all you've been doing this whole time! You've been saying "Such and such an article has been deleted, so this one should too." I'll admit it's a horrible argument, but it's all you've been saying this entire conversation. McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So far, you haven't shown this list's notability, necessity to exist, its encyclopedic nature, nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I've asserted its WP:NOTE, by the primary notability criterion: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." It's got those sources now. I've asserted it's potential to be encyclopedic by talking about the blisters and other potential topics, which you've yet to give any reason as to why they are non-encyclopedic. I have jumped through a bunch of hoops, meeting your every whim. McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And yet you vote keep regardless. You, without any of those arguments to back you up, combined with the precedent to not have level or mini-game information on GameFAQs, do not have a leg to stand on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What was that? You said that I don't have a leg to stand on? Yyou've even said yourself that you don't have a leg to stand on. Yesterday you said "Besides the fact that it tells you how to beat the mini-games? . . . I got nothing." Now that Bowsy has removed the advice on how to beat it you have nothing! McKay 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. Because he got rid of the content, the fact that the general consensus has been "lists of mini-games/levels suck" ceases to exist. Fact: There is no need for this article besides "it's informative", which now that you removed the game guide information, it is no longer informative. Why is this the only list of mini-games in the entire universe that warrants an article? Rayman RR was deleted for good reason. Mario Party's mini-game list has no more merit than RRR or Monkey Ball Wii's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment below as it's the same question McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked over the article, and I fail to see how this cannot be seen as guide content. The descriptions tell you how to win the mini-game and how to play it. AKA - it's GUIDING you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mini-games in Mario Party are basically levels. We don't have level guides here, I don't see why mini-games should be made an exception. Sourcing is fine and all: but that doesn't fix how unencyclopedic it is. As I stated before: other mini-game lists were deleted in AFD, Mario Party shouldn't be an exception either. Just because it's probably the most known mini-games: doesn't mean it should be kept over Rayman game and/or Super Monkey Ball game lists. RobJ1981 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, Game Guides aren't allowed, so it can be reasonably assumed level guides aren't allowed. Game Lists are allowed, though there isn't any policy saying they can exist. So level lists? There isn't any policy about that. So the article should stay, and we should watch to make sure the guide content stays off. McKay 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So game guides aren't allowed. And just because there is no policy saying "list of levels in video games are bad, mkay?" does not mean that they belong on Wikipedia. Are you saying that because it's not explicitly stated that I can't make an article about flying purple rocks with hats on, that it doesn't violate any guidelines? What is the purpose of this article? Why is this list of mini-games notable to Wikipedia? Also, the reason why Rayman and Monkey Ball failed the AfD was not that it was particularly less notable than other mini-game compilations, but because it is a mini-game list. Why is this mini-game list more than just any mini-game list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is correct, just because there isn't policy saying that a type of page isn't allowed, doesn't mean it should be allowed. Also, Just because there isn't policy saying that a type of page is allowed doesn't mean that it isn't. We need to evaluate the article based on it's own merits in accordance with wikipedia policy, which is what this discussion is all about. Also, I would say that the RRR list was not removed just because it is a minigame list. Also, I'd say that it didn't get the "fair" treatment that this one is getting. And the monkey ball one? It died from a prod. I'm going to claim that they never really had their time in court. Don't claim that mini-games lists are inherently non-notable. I don't think there's any evidence to support that. McKay 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The lack of any evidence or any argument that mini-game lists in general belong on Wikipedia does say that the list should go. Tell me, why does this list belong on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've provided evidence in the form of the primary notability criterion. I say that it should be here, and I've met that criterion, it is up to the deleteists to come up with the reasons for deletion. McKay 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game guide. Except for the bits about the lawsuit, the entire list consists of original research; it provides analysis and interpretation of facts based upon the writer's first-hand observations. The content policies apply to lists as much as they do to any other page in the main namespace. --Slowking Man 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this may be true, but it can change. Feel free to tag it with an OR template if you wish. McKay 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT TO USERS McKay and A Link to the Past: Although your thoughts and arguments are appreciated in these discussions, your persistence to express your views are becoming disruptive. Please just let other users express their opinions on keeping or deleting the article and let the majority rule. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority shouldn't rule; voting is evil. Instead, consensus will be determined. –Llama man^talk_contribs 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. Also, superior reasoning is another factor. This is a discussion, not a poll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was just suggesting a resolve to this dispute. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "majority". I'm sorry, but I don't think dozens of posts from one or two users to express a certain point of view is superior to the good-faith opinion of various editors. I don't think that's how you reach consensus. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that LttP and I are possibly getting somewhere. We're probably not going to reach an agreement, but I think we're understanding each other better. There is a truth, and we're trying to reach it. McKay 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping for. Sorry about the previous comments. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game guide information, fails WP:NOT. Hbdragon88 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- now that the game guide information has been removed, do you have any other comments? McKay 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me your reasoning why precedence doesn't matter. If you have anything to show that this list of mini-games is somehow more notable than all other lists of mini-games or lists of levels, I want to see. Show me the necessity of this article. And no, saying "WELL I AWREADY SED IT" doesn't count. You can either explain to me why this article is notable and necessary or stop saying it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, I'm having a hard time fully understanding your arguments, so I'm requesting clarification. Is this article absolutely necessary? No. Is the article on Minor Slytherins necessary? No, is the article on Codd's 12 rules necessary? No. But an Encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." "As a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia seeks to describe as wide a range of topics as possible." so while an article on the effects of salt on slugs, or an article about me might not be strictly necessary it might be desired to have such articles. But Wikipedia can't police information about everything under the sun, so wikipedia has established a few core guidelines, namely that of WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. The first two are what's being discussed here, and are neatly covered in WP:NOTE. We don't add an article about something (like me for example), unless a couple of WP:RS have written something on the subject. This criterion has been met. If you (or anyone) still have (or has) a problem with this article meeting this criterion, please respond here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, wikipedia has the guidelines contained in WP:NOT. Here is the real concern. Some have said that this list is an Indiscriminate collection of information. It's the original concern that RobJ mentioned, specifically that little has been done to fix the article. Since the listing of the AfD, Bowsy has cleaned out the "Instruction Manual" portion of the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mario_Party_minigames&diff=prev&oldid=117071182 You yourself, aLttP, have mentioned that the article no longer has a problem with this criterion. If you (or anyone else) would like to bring up this potentially-valid concern again, please respond here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that last post of aLttP's, he mentioned another concern, I'm not quite sure how to quantify it, you say "it's informative" (you say it's the only reason, but I've brought up others, like "notable", and "encyclopedic") but I fail to see how this has anything to do with policy. Maybe I'm not understanding something, so if you have something else to bring up. Feel free to note it here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You also keep bringing up the other articles that have been deleted. WP:WAX. What makes this one different? Well, I think it's got encyclopedic content. I think it's got reliable sources, I think the information is at least partially verifiable. Sure, there's some work that could be done in all three areas, but I think it's better in those areas than those articles that got deleted. I keep saying that precedent shouldn't be used, namely because I think this article may be different (it's hard to say that that's the case, because if the articles are deleted, I can't see what they're like). Please, give me the benefit of the doubt. Assume this article is different somehow. And Evaluate, on it's own merits which wikipedia policy warrants its deletion. If you still have other concerns with regards to WP:WAX and precedent. Please, bring them up here. McKay 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some, if it was unnecessary, it would be rated as stub class, but, in both WPNintendo and WPCvG it is start class. Henchman 2000 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's necessary; heck, I could write a list of references to Chuck Norris, and it wouldn't be a stub, but it wouldn't be necessary. –Llama man^talk_contribs 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think it has encyclopedic content does not mean that it has encyclopedic content. The fact of the matter is that Rayman RR and Monkey Ball's mini-games have more substance than Mario Party's, yet still failed to continue to exist. If you wish, make a deletion review for them. If they come back, MP can stay. If not, MP goes. MP is no more notable than them. Also, I can use the precedence argument for deleting - you cannot use it for keeping. The fact that no other game series has a mini-game list and the ones that did were deleted is usable. The fact that another article exists with questionable notability is not. You're comparing a list of minor characters from Harry Potter to a list of mini-games in Mario Party. The fact is that those Slytherins are probably more notable than these mini-games since there IS precedence to have list of characters. If it's there, it either deserves to be or it has yet to be put on the slate for deletion. Being on Wikipedia is very different from deserving to be on Wikipedia. Your comparison of a list of minor characters that spans an entire franchise to a list of mini-games in a single game is apples and oranges, but my comparison is of two like-minded articles. So why is this a notable mini-game list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the article doesn't have encyclopedic content, you're going to have to attack that point directly, saying that my thinking it's encyclopedic doesn't make it so, isn't an argument against it. I don't think a Deletion Review is necessary, because policy was kept, but that participation seemed partisan, and there's nothing that happened wrong from an administrative perspective (unless WP:CANVASing can be shown, but that might prove difficult). It appears as if almost your entire argument is based on precedent (You keep saying "unencyclopedic" but haven't mentioned why since I've shown it's encyclopedicness). If we go off of precedent, Disavian has shown that 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 have all survived an AFD. Some more than once. Precedence clearly shows that these articles should stay. McKay 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that shows that MP fanboys are too vast. Oh, and it's funny that you seem to expect me to argue why it's not encyclopedic (such as levels and mini-games list being guide content), but you won't answer why it is besides "Omg, if Minor Slytherins gets an article so does Mario Party mini-game lists!". - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think that MP Fanboys have overwhelmed the discussion with worthless content, maybe you should open up a deletion review. With regards to encyclopedic content, I have answered that, I mentioned that Bowsy cleaned up the article and removed guide content. A list of something doesn't a guide make. Obviously that's the case, because a list of minor slytherins is not a guide. So, you'll have to tell us why you think that the article is non-encylopedic. Why you think it's an indiscriminant collection of information (and that it can't be cleaned up). I think it's clear that there is at least some encyclopedic content on the page, the blister stuff is notable enough. I have several arguements for the article. But note that it's your responsibility as the person voting for delete to bring up the issues, and my responsibility to say, "yes it's notable because it has sources, yes it is encyclopedic because it has information about the games involved in the blister lawsuit." You say I've only got one argument? Yes, I brought up the minor slytherins issue after you brought up the RRRmg. I've also brought up that the content is notable. I've also brought up that the content is encyclopedic. If you would like to explain why you think I'm mistaken, please feel free to do so, but you haven't brought up anything besides saying "game lists are guide content BBQ!" and I've said that they aren't inherently so, and that you must show me why game lists are inherently guide content, and you haven't done that. McKay 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the other Mario Party minigame lists have been nominated for deletion at some point. I suggest that AfD participants consider the following:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (result was keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames (ongoing)

My reccomendation is that they be nominated for deletion all at once, because they're virtually identical in terms of content. If they're kept, they're all kept. It seems a little late for that in this discussion now, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The "games" topic is notable; should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable information / sources. This topic deserves representation in any encyclopedia. We have an obligation to provide the world with current reliable, and verifiable information. ErgoEgo 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (note, this contributor is 8 days old and has 6 edits, none of which are in the article namespace)[reply]

Keep as this is a useful list fit for an electronic encyclopedia. I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in. Burntsauce 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, it is game guide material, completely unattributable (since no professional journal/news source would ever write individually about each minigame) and the minigames themselves are not notable outside of Mario Party. There. I've cited two policies and a guideline. Axem Titanium 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, If you think that the information is Game Guide materaial, please tell us why. We have provided sources to the page, and these games meet the primary WP:N guideline, namely that there are several independant sources which reference the minigames non-trivially. If you have further complaints, please list them. McKay 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - If you think that counts as "improving the article", you are sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, this is a deletion debate and the burden of proof is on you to show that the article is not game guide material, which is certainly what it seems to be (and is). Axem Titanium 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per practically everyone's delete arguments. No one has improved this article in a month, so, from what I see, all these "the article can be encyclopedic" is lookin' like a load of BS. I'd really love to see this apparently nonexistence encyclopedic version of this article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been improved, and if you think that the article is non-encyclopedic, could you please tell us why you think that way so that we can fix it? Or be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself. McKay 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it appears I should rephrase my statement: the article cannot be encyclopedic. It's never going to be anything more than a crufty-looking list that will only benefit Mario Party fans. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's looking pretty obvious that this is gonna be a "no consensus" ruling and, seeing as this is probably going to be nominated again, I feel we need to set up some sort of proposal, something along the lines of "if it can't be improved after a certain amount of time to a better quality, then delete," because this is going to be ridiculous. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I think you should read WP:CONSENSUS again. I think consensus is gradually formingin the way of keep.
  - I think you should realize that this will, more than likely, be nominated again, which is what I said in that above statement; regardless of how it's kept, it will be nominated again, and again, and again.... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So yeah, I figure that even if it gets several dozen keep results from AfDs, it will probably be nominated again, because people think that listcruft in all forms should be burninated. Sadly, I think such AfDs are a waste of Wikipedia's resources, but yes, I realize that an AfD will happen again. But that doesn't make it right. McKay 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's right: it doesn't make it right; what I'm suggesting is maybe there should be a way of going about this that will decide once and for all whether this should exist of or not, preventing thousands of AfDs. To tell you the truth, I don't care whether or not it gets deleted or not anymore; I just want this resolved. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. This discussion is going nowhere because of the repetitive arguments of basically two users, and its been like this for 3-4 days. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree. At worst, repeat AFDs are an annoyance. However, there is no need to set an arbitrary deadline for the improvement and/or completion of articles. I can understand the frustration (on both sides) of having AFD after AFD, but if there's no consensus, then there's no consensus. Creating a policy to override consensus (or lack thereof) won't help. -- Black Falcon 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, something needs to be in place, otherwise all the list pages need to be re-nominated and deleted. If people think it's encyclopedic: then fix it already. But the issue is: it can't be encyclopedic, and it's just people wanting it because they like it. As I stated before: mini-games are basically levels of the Mario Party games. Wikipedia should never become a level guide. It isn't one now, and MP lists shouldn't be the start of major fancruft level guides. Let's look at the possibilities, shall we? 1: A plain and simple list of the games = fan/listcruft. 2: a list of the games, with descriptions = still fan/listcruft. 3: a list of the games and how to play them = listcruft/game guide. What else is there? Sourcing the article doesn't change it from being listcruft, fancruft and/or a guide. I don't understand why people can't understand Wikipedia isn't a video game guide. There is gaming wikis, yet people refuse to use them in this case. RobJ1981 08:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says listcruft is a reason to remove an article? There isn't any wikipedia policy that says that listcruft should be removed. I think that we should keep the game guide information off the page, but there's nothing wrong with the list of games. McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So just a plain, useless list that only lists the names of the minigames should exist? Plainly put, I'm not diggin' it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but if you'd look at the article, you'd see that there is more encyclopedic information on the page than just the list of the games. But really, note that there isn't a policy in wikipedia that says that lists shouldn't exist. In fact, there's a guideline page on lists just like this one. McKay 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theory of the article as a listing of minigames is overly specific and not encyclopedic in any form. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could you please tell me what's unencyclopedic about the article? McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario Party (with or without merge). I don't get what is going on with these Mario Party afds... am I missing something? This is straightforward cruft. It belongs in an instruction booklet or a FAQ. This can NEVER be anything more than a list of basic gameplay descriptions of the mini-games. A really good editor might be able to reformat this into a gameplay section of Mario Party, but no, not as its own article. --- RockMFR 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask, "What's wrong with cruft"? Lists are all over wikipedia. We should try to keep the game guide information off the article, but that's a seperate issue entirely. McKay 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are many minigames that can be classified under this list as the Mario Party has extended into quite a long series. --Valley2city^₪‽ 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article covers just the minigames from Mario Party (1). Each of the other mario party games has their own section. McKay 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is game guide material. It may not explain exactly how to play them, but it's no different than listing levels. At the very most, there should only be one "List of reccurring Mario Party minigames" (and that's still pushing it). I don't see any defense for this besides the usual "I like it", "It can be improved (yet five months later it's the same)", "There's nothing saying this can't be here (when most of the guide lines and policies are against it), and all of the other pointless arguments. It's sad that this will default to keep. Nemu 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In regard to your second point, I wish to note that the article has undergone non-trivial improvement (see diff) since this AFD was started. -- Black Falcon 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I would classify that as trivial. It's about the level of a minor clean up. And is it going to be improved past that? Just because people want to save it from this AfD doesn't mean they'll actually touch it after. Nemu 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I suppose it's a matter of perception; that's why I chose to write "non-trivial improvement" rather than "substantial improvement". My main reason for arguing that it constituted a non-trivial improvement is due to the addition of references, which were previously wholly absent. In any case, as long as you are/were aware that there had been changes, the issue is moot. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's ludicrous to keep this stuff when serious articles with proper refs get deleted! NBeale 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Though actual game-guide suggestions have been removed, this is still a game guide: "the player can ...", "the player must ...". A few instances in a broader article would be OK, but this is not that. -- Black Falcon 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve this article to remove "game guide" content? 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I could suggest three things offhand. First, rename the title to "Mario Party minigames". Second, add more prose covering the types of minigames, the lawsuit, and any other relevant topics for which there are sources. Third, remove anything that isn't purely descriptive. I will try to the third now; if I succeed, it will invalidate my WP:NOT argument. In any case, I have stricken my recommendation to delete as I believe userfying to an interested editor may be more appropriate in this case. -- Black Falcon 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two paragraphs of prose that provide details on the minigames and the lawsuit (see diff). I think this is enough to justify retention of the article. Any additional changes/trimming is an editorial issue that can be performed in place of deletion. -- Black Falcon 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I will admit, it makes it look a bit better, I still don't feel this asserts its existence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a merge of the two articles. I am just hesitant to perform it myself given the seeming lack of consensus on this page and my complete lack of knowledge about Mario Party beyond what's in this article and what I gleaned from skimming a few sources. -- Black Falcon 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I still don't feel that the lawsuit information is relevant to this list. Only the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. A substantial number of recommendations by editors were made on prior versions of this article. Almost everyone has commented on this version, which has been superceded by this version. Please take that into consideration when evaluating the discussion. Thank you, Black Falcon 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion to redirect still stands. The only meaningful change is the inclusion of the bit about the lawsuit. This is already in the main article and anything that is different in this version can be merged to the main article. --- RockMFR 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Find Me[edit]

Contested prod. No indication that this books comes even close to meeting the criteria of WP:BK. This is almost speediable as spam since the article concludes with "Copies are found in NC, largely in the Creedmoor area, usually located in small bookstores. To buy a copy by mail, send $9.50 to 1689 Fern Hollow Rd. Franklinton, NC 27605"! Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That is definitely a clever attempt at advertising! I would have never caught that! Article does not provide adequate sourcing and could possible have original research. The Themes and Summary sections might be based on someone's own interpretation of things.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thinly-disguised advertising which also reads like a personal opinion of the book. Resurgent insurgent 12:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StuartDouglas 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Pig^man_dialogue 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Ronbo76 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as spam. Seems to be an abuse of wikipedia's resources. Mr. Berry 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable book. Metamagician3000 09:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangutans in popular culture[edit]

A very crufty article that was most likely made so the Orangutan article wouldn't be bloated with cruft. This isn't how Wikipedia should be working. Trim trivia and pop culture sections: don't move them into crufty articles that aren't helpful. RobJ1981 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orangutan.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any entries where it can be verified through the use of reliable sources that the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the lifeform in question back into the main article. Merge any entries where multiple reliable fact-checked sources indicate that the appearance is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question into the main article. Delete anything at this namespace; I believe the rest of the references can get by without a reciprocal wikilink. -- saberwyn 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Might Qualify: Dunston Checks In (film whose plot is centred around an orangutan), Discworld's Librarian (major character over multiple novels in a popular fictional series. Maybe... maybe. -- saberwyn 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both the orangutan article and this are not so large that these can't be merged. Wikipedia allows otherwise unsourced plot summaries, I believe, so if the Edgar Allan Poe story can be named, I think that's good enough, and same for the Planet of the Apes and other books and films. I don't know what saberwyn means by "is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question". Noroton 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone could provide a source saying that appearance of orangutan x in fictional work y was responsible for... say... a significant upswing in donations to conservation efforts concerning orangutans (or some similar "news-making" occurance, then it should be entered in the Orangutan article. A vague bell rings of a section of proceeds from the sales of one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels going towards an orangutan conservation fund, which to me would go towards qualifying The Librarian (Discworld) for a small paragraph in the main article, but I may be dreaming. -- saberwyn 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the list isn't to provide information on real orangutans, it's to follow how orangutans are used in cultural artifacts of whatever sort. The purpose of the list article, aside from being entertaining, is to be a serious resource for someone researching or studying or wanting to be educated about how orangutans are depicted in popular culture. That can be a serious topic, which in turn justifies the article in a serious encyclopedia.Noroton 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps editors keenly encouraging a merge might like to look a bit more carefully at the talk page and the edit history of this and the parent article before so keenly encouraging a merge.Satu Suro 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Indeed - there is a history behind the seperation of this article and Orang utan. There was disagreement over whether this info should be in the article, a third party broke the dead lock by creating this one which was acceptable to both disagreeing parties.Merbabu 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The implied criticism by the nominator needs addressing very carefully. This isnt how Wikipedia should be working - good to see the idealism, but practically every animal that exists on wikipedia has enthusiastic watchers of tv culture, obscure books and pc game culture providing unalphabetically added - ad hoc- poorly written lists of information. Very few articles appear to incorporate reasonable sections regarding explanation or context of the popular culture context (then the large questions 'whose popular culture?' arises as well)

On the basis of this nomination, it might be that every article in the category 'Animals in Popular Culture would need to go through similar process - and then after that - every animal that is listed in wikipedia probably has had a similar addition. The issues that arise from one and which have a consequent precedent set for almost every animal article in wikipedia - are (a) do the enthusiastic watchers of t.v. culture and obscure p.c. games have adequate warning that their moments of genius in associating their favourite with an animal with a wikipedia article have some avenue now implicitly cut off? (b) have editors who either watch or maintain (but not Own) of course - articles about animals - to be warned and aware of popular culture articles about to be have forced merges? I strongly suspect apart from Rat - which seems to be living happily in both worlds for some odd reason - many editors find popular culture sections offensive and out of place.

(My emphasis - as most seem to be missing the point) - I believe this aFd is out of place - and the issue - as it affects at least two categories and potential edit wars regarding merges over a number of articles - should be levered higher - and perhaps a wider view needs to be made of the whole range of articles which have been created - and the overal fate of the nature of the '..in Popular Culture' tendency and habits need to be broached higher up the food chain rather than this one article...Satu Suro 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep - NOT merge. The Orang utan article should be a serious encyclopedic article on orang utans. THis on the other hand is a list of junk that has nothing to do with orang utans. One of the most common criticisms of wikipedia is it's (lazy?) over-emphasis on pop culture. Like all the other useless pop culture trivia list, does anyone really think that a mention of the video games in which orangs appear is (a) encylopedic or (b) actually assists us in understanding orang utans? The answer is surely 'no'. The insistence on such lists in serious encyclopedia articles is a serious blight on wikipedia. Me thinks it's got more to do with bored teenagers (who actually know nothin about orang utans - or whatever other subject) wanting to list their favourite cartoon or video game. 'Orang Utans' and 'Orang Utans in Pop Culture' have nothing to do with each other. However, although i think it is a junk article, i can live with it's existence IF it means that the junk doesn't get into the orang utan article (as it does for so many other topics). Once the Sydney Opera House article had a list of the most obscure films and TV shows in which it had appeared - the list was half the article. Let's put a stop to this rubbish please. Or, if we must keep it somewhere, at least keep it seperate to the real articles. Can that be our compromise? Merbabu 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no merge Otto4711 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to delete this. By merging it to Orangutan, we will fail to create a better encyclopaedia. Otherwise send it to [10], the trivia trove that anyone can edit. — Indon (reply) — 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Indon. Incidentally, I hope wikitrivia catches on a bit more, I went there and clicked random page and got the main page back twice in a row. But I'm glad to see it's out there. Mango juice^talk 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively. Orangutans that appear in notable works of fiction should appear in the main article; and it strikes me as beyond cavil that (at least) the Murders in the Rue Morgue and the Pratchett use of orangutans are about highly notable works, and their presence in the Orangutan article would not detract from its serious in the least. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murders in the Rue Morgue is the Edgar Allen Poe story in question. --Tikiwont 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except they tell us nothing about Orangutans. Apparently they use orangutans as villians. Orangutans cannot be villians, it is completly inappropiate to suggest that any animal is in some way a villian. Orangutans are orangutans and the article should be about describing them as such. Sure this sort of infomation is quite appropiate for an Animals in literature article or similar, but should not be merged back into Orangutan. -- Michael Johnson 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not express an opinion here, but just wanted to clarify that Smerdin actually named the unnamed Edgar Allen Poe story.--Tikiwont 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad, bad article. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOT. Doesn't try to source anything, and the vague reference to an unnamed Edgar Allen Poe story is mind-boggling. The sectiion that seems like it might treat the subject of the use of orangutans turns out to be nothing more than a laundry list. Arkyan 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and improve. Acalamari 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that 'in popular culture' articles are usually "all the cruft that the main article rejected". Brianyoumans 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gorillas in popular culture and List of fictional apes and move to Apes in popular culture. SatuSuro has a point that we should apply the same principles to all these 'soandso in popular culture'. I think they should all be kept and deserve their own articles.--DorisHノート 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to avoid future edit wars or Delete if you must but do not merge into Orangutan. This is a lot of anthropomorphic cruft that has nothing to do with orangutans, but is rather a reflection on our own (specificly Western) society and our relationship to animals. -- Michael Johnson 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and strong do not merge There's little doubt this is a corner where cruft has been chased into, but can anyone actually suggest a better way of dealing with the onslaught? Kla'quot 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough and too big for the other articles. SakotGrimshine 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this particular article should be judged by itself, for it is much better sourced than the majority of "in popular culture" articles. The role in almost all the works cited is significant--sometimes central, as in Poe. I see no reason to accept or reject all animals in popular culture articles as a blanket policy--some have enough material, and some don't. This is one which clearly does. It even talks about the uses in general a little, and is not just a list. Good example for other articles. DGG 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references needed! However, the topic is notable and the content isn't horrible. ~a

(user • talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this can be expanded even more too Butnotthehippo 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG while leaving a possible (perhaps desirable) merge to editorial discretion. -- Black Falcon 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orangutans are a very, very notable topic. Orangutans in popular culture are not. 38.100.34.2 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orangutan, these are important examples but this list is small enough not be a section in the main article. Plasticbottle 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the people suggesting 'merge' do they have any thoughts on the view that this list actually has nothing to do with orang utans? Merbabu 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has a little (admittedly, not too much) to do with portrayals of orangutans in fiction. -- Black Falcon 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orangutans in pop culture? Trivia is considered to be "interesting, but not important". This information isn't even interesting. It also has no future of being particularly useful. The Filmaker 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's worth keeping, but not really fit for its own article. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons already well stated above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT, and WP:OR. --KZ^Talk ^• ^Contrib 06:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify which part(s) is/are original research? The article is sourced by two secondary sources and, of course, the primary sources (i.e., films, books) themselves. Also, WP:OR is a part of WP:ATT. -- Black Falcon 07:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a new Apes in popular culture, per User:DorisH above, or otherwise keep. I think User:Noroton's argument further above that these articles are useful for research is valid and hasn't been refuted. I think the point made on the talk page that this article was created to avoid a war over content on Orangutan should weigh in its favour. This article's not at all exhaustive, but I haven't received the memo that all Wikipedia articles must now be either complete or deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw numbers come to about 5 Delete, 4 Keep, 7 Merge... I may not have that exactly right, but little matter as we are mainly looking at strength of argument here. But there is no clear numerical consensus for any one solution. But a Delete is out of the question as most commentors argue for keeping all or most of the material, via either Keep or Merge. So it must be Keep or Merge. I can assume that the Delete commentors would prefer Merge to Keep; if that is true we have 4 Keep, 12 Delete or Merge... but yet, can we assume that? Maybe not; Michael Johnson has an interesting and I think cogent point: "Keep or Delete but do not Merge cultural cruft into serious biology articles.". This is refuted by Black Falcon, but not decisively; I think the matter is somewhat up the air, both points of view have merit. All in all, I see a strong tendency toward some manner of Deleting the article, yet no clear consensus or winning argument over how to delete it (Delete (with or without Redirect) or Merge). I don't want to Merge the article when the argument against this (per Michael Johnson) has not been decisively refuted. Therefore we are left with NO CONSENSUS, with no prejudice against any editor adding a {{mergeto}} tag. Herostratus 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pterodactyls in popular culture[edit]

Yet another crufty pop culture article. This seems like another case of "It's too big, so let's just move it into a crufty trivia article". The most notable points should be in the Pterodactyl article, not in a seperate article. As a note: an unreferenced tag has been on this since July, if that's any indication on how much people care about this article. RobJ1981 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main pterodactyl article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any entries where it can be verified through the use of reliable sources that the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the lifeform in question back into the main article. Merge any entries where multiple reliable fact-checked sources indicate that the appearance is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question into the main article. Delete anything at this namespace; I believe the rest of the references can get by without a reciprocal wikilink. -- saberwyn 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cited material into main pterodactyl article, at least as it now stands, and delete everything that hasn't been cited. No mercy if it's been sitting around this long without anyone bothering to cite. If the vast majority of information here is cited, and it shouldn't be that hard to do, then I'd be open to changing to Keep. Subjects of obvious ongoing interest have some value to an encyclopedia, even when they're just the reaction of popular culture. The individual cultural references come and go, but we'll always have extinct pterodactyls to kick around, and there's some research and entertainment value in seeing how we do it. But it's only worthwhile with a worthwhile article. Noroton 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, unsourced, plagued by OR and generally unnecessary. Otto4711 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- we must do this to preserve the page history, because this page used to just be Pterodactyl. At some point, the good stuff was merged from there into Pterosaur and the rest moved to the current article. However, there's nothing worth merging IMO, but with a redirect in place, folks can look for stuff to merge if they want to. Mango juice^talk 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into pterosaur. Like it or not, pterosaurs and other big Mesozoic critters are mainstays of fiction; the use (and nomenclature) of these critters in these works is worthy of mention and comment. It strikes me as beyond reasonable doubt that The Lost World (Arthur Conan Doyle), Jurassic Park, Rodan, and One Million Years BC are all in their way quite notable, and if pterosaurs figure in them, they should be mentioned in a section about pterosaurs in fiction in the article in chief. The notion that including these things in the article in chief would somehow detract from its seriousness is deeply unconvincing, and loses a golden opportunity to contrast paleontology with the fictions it inspired. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently there's a cycle that tends to go on in "in popular culture" sections and articles, as described at WP:POPCULTURE. That essay, and WP:TRIVIA has some good advice for this kind of stuff.Noroton 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humm. The opening paragraph actually is off to a good start but then any hope of a useful article is dashed when it devolves from useful information into an indiscriminate list of appearances. If there is anything worth saving then merge it, but delete this article. No sources, WP:OR, etc etc. Arkyan 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ed. Acalamari 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge highly unlikely readers whould need an in-depth article on this. Antonrojo 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete but do not Merge cultural cruft into serious biology articles. -- Michael Johnson 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is much less carefully prepared than the chimpanzees article, contains a less focused group of cultural uses, and is poorly sourced. The actual material is still significant. The article needs much editing. Deleting articles instead of editing them is not the best way to improve WP.DGG 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that's actually useful into the main article (a couple of book refs, a couple of movie refs, and a couple of mascots/planes, and that's about it; everything else is "there happened to be a pterosaur there" and slang for a sex position that looks like a good way to kill the mood by breaking up with laughter). Don't delete, due to the page history. I'm biased, though; I hate "in pop culture" articles that are mostly made up of "there was an X present". J. Spencer 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a good, well-sturcted article
Keep and tag with {{mergeto}}. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that, "like it or not, pterosaurs and other big Mesozoic critters are mainstays of fiction". I think a selective merge into pterosaur is appropriate, but think it ought to be left to the editors working on one or both articles to determine how selective they want to be. As to opposition to the merger of "cultural cruft" and "serious biological articles", it would be prudent to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a biology textbook but rather an encyclopedia that encompasses a wide range of topics, of which biology and fiction are two. I can understand wanting to avoid a cluttered article, but there's no need to establish an iron curtain between science and culture. -- Black Falcon 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by Black Falcon. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I agree with Michael Johnson that we should not merge this into the related, serious biological article. 38.100.34.2 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to pigs[edit]

Unsourced crufty article that is another example of the mass trivia cruft all these pop culture/cultural references that has invaded Wikipedia. The excuse of "it was made to help the article be less bloated" has been said many times on Wikipedia, when it comes to this. But a section (in this case, and most/all culture references) should be just trimmed: instead of moved just because it gets too big. Let's use Category:In popular culture as the root of this problem. 12 subcats, along with 81 pages in the regular part of the category. I think people assuming "because this has a pop culture page, this one should be fine too" needs to be put to rest. RobJ1981 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources provided (WP:RS), probably original research (WP:OR). Some of the statements don't even make any sense. Although this can be fixed, the current article clearly doesn't belong.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any entries where it can be verified through the use of reliable sources that the cultural reference is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event/whatever that the work/movie/game/whatever could not exist in its entirety without the lifeform in question back into the main article. Merge any entries where multiple reliable fact-checked sources indicate that the appearance is undeniably important to promoting the subject in question into the main article. Any appearance foucsing on a related species should be merged to an article relating to that species instead (warthogs to Warthog, if following the aforementioned limitations and sourcing. Delete anything at this namespace; I believe the rest of the references can get by without a reciprocal wikilink. -- saberwyn 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This long list convinces me that pigs are just too important as cultural symbols. You can't merge all the citable items into any article without them overwhelming that article. This list is long and deserves to be long because thare are, in fact, a lot of significant cultural references to the porkers and the myths we've attached to them. I think the nominator has stretched the meaning of "cruft" so that it's meaning isn't "something that only fans of the subject would be interested in" to "something I think is too trivial for an encyclopedia". But pigs, like pterodactyls and orangutans, we will always have, and all it takes is to be interested in culture in general to be interested in this subject. I don't like the lack of references, but again, I think we need to wait for someone to stick the footnotes in, because Wikipedia would be worse off for not covering this subject. And it's too obvious that these items can be referenced for us to use that alone as the reason for deleting. Noroton 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so far as I know we won't actually always have pterodactyls and havent actually had them for millions of years... Otto4711 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTTO4711, you are wrong. You have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. Too many skeptics do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, OTTO4711, whether they be men's or children's, or even pop culture consumers', are little (especially pop culture consumers, come to think of it). In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, OTTO4711, there are pterodactyls. They exist as certainly as love and generosity and carnivorous terror exists, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy, and some damn fine B movies. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no pterodactyls. It would be as dreary as if there were no OTTO4711s. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance or One Million Years BC to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which The Land That Time Forgot fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in pterodactyls! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your Jimbo Wales to hire men to watch in all the World Wide Web sites to catch news reports on pterodactyl sitings, but even if they did not see pterodactyls come squawking out of some excavation site, as in London in 1856, what would that prove? Nobody sees pterodactyls, except fossilized in museums or on "The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", but that is no sign that there are no pterodactyls. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see unless they rent the right DVDs. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. (On second thought, don't answer that last question.) Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the Wikipedians that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, Netflix, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal terror and horror beyond. Is it all real? Ah, OTTO4711, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. We just have to cite references for it.

No pterodactyls! Thank God! They live, and they live forever. A thousand years from now, OTTO4711, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, they will continue to strike terror in the heart of pop culture consumers. Noroton 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I said about the nominator stretching the meaning of "cruft", apparently the nom's usage is used that way by others, as shown at Wikipedia:Fancruft, and I apologize. I will say that I think we should limit the meaning to the more restrictive sense I mention, because one editor's "fancruft" could then be another's "sciencecruft".Noroton 04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article isn't as bad as most IPC articles, but should still be merged back into the main article. "Pigs and people" could easily be condensed into a well-written prose paragraph or two, "Pig-related idioms" should be transwikied to Wiktionary, and "Music and art" can be mostly trashed as indiscriminate. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection seeking to capture not only every time a pig is mentioned in "popular culture" but every time something with a name like "piggy" or "pig" exists or is mentioned. Oppose merging any of this to the main pig article or anywhere else. Otto4711 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- obviously this needs work and lots of pruning but I think I can make something worthwhile out of this mess. (Per Krimpet, kind of). Mango juice^talk 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one probably needs to stay. It needs to be better organized and broader in scope; my brief look didn't notice some cultural references that belong, like Pigs in the Chinese zodiac. But pigs are a domestic animal, and there are just too many fictional and anthropomorphic pigs out there to merge into the article in chief about swine. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone in and attempted to make parts of the text more discursive and less list-y. I created a section about "pigs in mythology and religion", and "pigs in folklore". Further sections might include "anthropomorphic pigs," "pigs as symbols," "pigs as metaphor", and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was offloaded from the main text by me "to help the Pig to be less bloated" and it obviously works well - the Pig article remained clean and on-topic since then. Delete it (or even worse, merge it back) and the Pig will deteriorate in no time. The solution, for now, is to take care and improve the ".. in popular culture" article (example of sucessful maintenance is e.g. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc). Pavel Vozenilek 14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep contingent on cleanup. This is in dire need of sourcing. As it stands it seeems to suffer from a lot of WP:OR but if references can be added to attribute some of these statements that would go a long way to helping this article. If properly sourced this article becomes what a X in pop culture article should be - more than just a laundry list of appearances, it attempts to treat the topic of pigs in cultural references, why they are used, inherent symbolism, etc. However if no sources can be found, it simply becomes OR. Arkyan 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced, notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The one thing that concerns me is the vague term "Cultural references". I might even say that at least a few of the sections in this article could be made into articles of their own. The umbrella term "cultural references" strikes me as almost meaningless. (Disclosure: No porcine related industry or business pays me a promotional fee. I am a fully autonomous pig in these matters.) Pig^man_dialogue 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete but do not Merge cultural cruft into serious biology articles. -- Michael Johnson 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Like all articles, these have to be judged individually; I do not see how the same comments can be used to justify the same !vote for three separate articles, either for or against. This one is really vague--the use is not really specialized, and the items included uncritical. DGG 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- interesting article. --WassermannNYC 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worth keeping though it needs work. Captain panda In vino veritas 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct Theory[edit]

Instinct theory does not site any real sources and is obviously made up. There is no book by Jacques Theroux named Instinct Theory, nor is there anyone by the name of Jacques Theroux. Eidolos

Question: What do you mean by "obviously made up"? "Instinct theory" garners approx. 44,000 exact hits on Google and is mentioned in several authoritative webpages, so there is at least such a thing. Checking the page history, many established editors have contributed to the article...it's not exactly "fake". If there's an accuracy problem, I believe this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion itself. +A.0u 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: There is no one by the name of Theroux, nor does the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen have anything to do with this. "Instinct theory" may get a lot of hits on google because there are theories on instincs but how many come up when you type in jacques theroux? or the name of his book? "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas." Oh, come on! There is no truth behind anything that has been written if you look into it. "certain scholars" "many professionals" there is NO proof behind this. Eidolos

Delete. A.Ou's sentiments are well-intentioned, but the sense in which these authorities use the phrase is clearly not the way any portion of the article depicts it. Indeed, it depicts nothing, except a nonexistent author (Library of Congress catalog search confirms that it doesn't have anything by a Jacques Theroux). The first paragraph is okay; the entire first section is demonstrably false; and the "Popular Culture" sections are at best original research and at worst a joke ("The 2004 film Collateral, Tom Cruise's character Vincent sees a coyote on the street and, in a very metaphorical scene, it reminds him of himself."). And the "Musical Theatre" section none of these "established editors" have seen fit to remove? Get rid of this blight, then we'll see if there's something encyclopedic in the topic. --zenohockey 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "Joseph A. Kenkel," either... okay, enough of this. --zenohockey 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep plenty of google hits, it's got references and it's verifiable by good sources. Oh by way, congrats on putting up an afd, not exactly an easy thing for a new user I know, for your first edit. --Paloma Walker 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to deleteUser:Eidolos and the convincing ones who say delete convinced me to take another look at it by narrowing the search including Theroux, Kenkel, Jacques Thiroux. So just from googling I found there is or was a person by the name Jacques Thiroux but he seemed to have nothing to do with this theory and the other two don't seem to exist. This convinces me it's a hoax. [11]

[12].--Paloma Walker 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone should further verify this. Reading this article a second time, if there's any legitimate content (is there?), it could be "merged" into the Instinct article. +A.0u 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see [13]. User said he created his account to get rid of this article.--Paloma Walker 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to vote speedy keep. This deleting a bad article is not a bad way to start editing. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did make this account to point out to the Wikipedia community that my friends made a false article. I admit to that, and there's nothing wrong with it. I also made this account to fix other errors and such as I see them. I simply had no reason to create an account before this, just to fix things anonymously. This is my first account. I did not make this one in addition to another just for this deletion. I just didn't have one before and I figured this was a good time for it. Eidolos

Final Word Here Well, this is really out of my comfort zone... Never done this before. I am only here to point out the site to you. Please make your own decisions based on what is in this article. I just feel that this is completely untrue and needs to be taken down. There are no such people as Theroux or Kenkel, it does not site credible sources (makes a lot of generalities like "many philosophers" or "certain scholars"), there is no such book as Assertations on Instinct Theory, the main writers/editors of this site do not have any other posts or edits, and the pop culture references are a stretch to say the least. Rumors on blogs about "Instinct theory: the Musical"? "Very few details are known about this future production, except that it will contain a score with every genre of music from jazz to reggae[citation needed]. The unnamed producer has little to say about this future film, except it might be released by mid 2008." There is no way this is feasible. I have looked for Instinct Theory and even if it does exist none of the sites have anything to do with topics described here. I am sorry for the excess of posting, I just want to prove my point in hopes of persuading you that this is fake. If you want to keep the site up and simply edit it to what Instinct Theory actually is, be my guest. A site I found from google searching (allpsych.com) says that Instinct theory says that we have innate instincts that help us to survive, like how spiders know how to make webs. It has nothing to do with comparing humans and animals. Maybe this topic could be expanded on rather than what is there now, but it does not seem nearly important enough to add.. Eidolos
Delete Complete bollocks, hoax. Don't redirect to ethology or evolutionary psychology or instinct, just delete. Pete.Hurd 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator has been forthcoming about having created the account for the sake of nominating this article and seems to have done it out of legitimate concern. I don't think that should factor in to the decision - remember assuming good faith? Anyway, this page is rife with WP:OR as it makes no attempt to properly satisfy WP:ATT. In fact one of the references appears to be entirely fictional. As such I doubt anything here is salvageable by merging - the term "Instinct Theory" may be a valid topic but that doesn't mean keeping/merging an article about a made-up concept with a real name is valid. Arkyan 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it says in the article: "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas.". Invented story, Hoax. Nothing to be merged there.--DorisHノート 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you people say these things? Here are a handful of credible websites which back up instinct theory: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20][21]I can't prove Jacques Theroux to be real or Joseph Kenkel, but Instinct theory is a real scientific theory and Eidolos seems to playing more of a joke on science than the creators of this article were playing, according to him. I move that the article is rewritten with the information on Jacques Theroux omitted until he can be proven to have existed. Thank you. - nagyovafan 6:50, March 20th, 2007

Comment: A joke on science? Really, how is reporting a site as false information worse than writing a false page as a joke? None of this on the page can be proven as real. This is simply a hoax with a real name, as Arkyan said. Looking at the sites you have given, every single page is a theory by a different person with different ideas, and are not a single unified scientific theory that should be given its own page. If it is decided to salvage what they can from different sites and just rewrite this page, then so be it. Eidolos

ADDED [22] Please make notice that Nagyovafan wrote nearly all of Instinct theory including the popular culture section when making a decision. If you couldn't prove Theroux's existance, then you shouldn't have written about him. Good day. Eidolos

ADDED I made several edits to the pop culture section, which you can't deny as a hoax, and I made several grammar edits, but I did not make up the Jacques Theroux story. There is such a thing as instinct theory, this page just needs a rewrite to gather all the information together in one page. - nagyovafan 12:45 PM, 21 March 2007

According to [23] you wrote the whole Beginning section which first spoke of Theroux and his "book"... If you are truly are concerned that all the information is real now, then you shouldn't have made fake things up. According to [24] you're the one that wrote "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas. ^{[citation needed]}" You wrote that it had a ludicrously short bibliography... why didn't you site the sources you just sited above? Why didn't you add those sites before? Your edits in the pop culture section support the rest of the article's ideas. Seeing all of your sources you just gave, I don't see a single one about an instinct theory that compared animals to humans. If I believed that you didn't write it for a second, then why, knowing this fake information about Theroux was here, did you not change it or tell anyone? Eidolos

Delete per nom. Deor 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense, complete bollocks, non-notability, and hoaxaliciousity, until we get some verification to the contrary. Bravo to the nominator for boldness, courage, and devotion to the truth. Thumbs up for the nominator, thumbs down to the article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. To crude to be an effective hoax, so not worth keeping as a notable joke. The only ingenious part was picking a title that would produce a very large number of ghits. The items listed under IPC are however a nice parody of some of the far-fetched IPC junk. I don't think they;'d make sense as an article by themselves. DGG 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudoscientific nonsense and hoax. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by King of Hearts. MER-C 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Wind[edit]

Vanity/ad page for non-notable company, created by User:True Wind Calliopejen 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is clearly against Wikipedia policy, this article can be nominated for Speedy Deletion. In addition, given that the User:True Wind's username seeks to promote a company (thus violating the username policy), I'm reporting the user to WP:AIV. +A.0u 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I nominated for speedy deletion previously, but they removed it. Calliopejen 06:26, 20 March 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbia[edit]

Just a neologism that's already been transwikied. The article—even the quotes—provides no evidence the term has ever really been used. Answers.com, Oxford English Dictionary online, Google ("define:disturbia"), and Urban Dictionary all come up empty. Plus, the article is taking up space needed by an upcoming movie. --zenohockey 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN neologism. Searching Google News Archive turns up little besides references to the film and to an earlier book[25]. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it's already been transwikied it's not needed here, especially since it's not that notable.

Weak delete as it reads like an unsourced personal essay, although it could possibly have the scope for a real article if referenced properly.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move Is this a real word?--Sefringle 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO. Who uses this supposed word? --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ROH shows[edit]

Fancruft/listcruft for a popular independent wrestling promotion. Imagine if a list for WWE existed: it would be insanely too long. These types of lists are better suited for a wrestling and/or fan wiki. As a note: from a comment on the talk page, this was deleted in the past. RobJ1981 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What was deleated in the past were several articles on different ROH events (i.e. Glory by Honor, the Anniversary Shows, Crowning a Champion). WWE does have list containing all their events, as well as different pages on the individual events; and the same goes for TNA, WCW, and the original ECW.PepsiPlunge 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All 3 promotions you listed are big promotions with PPV event list pages. The list pages for WWE, WCW and ECW are for PPVs, not every event. Ring of Honor usually has names for most (if not, all) of it's events: that doesn't make them anymore notable. Many ECW supercards (that had special names) had articles in the past, but were deleted, because of lack of notability. The list page is a fancruft guide to the event history of Ring of Honor. I don't see how a cleanup could even help it out, as people would just re-add it to make it look like a comprehensive list again I bet. RobJ1981 04:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat makes this different from say, a WWE list of house shows for example, is that almost every single Ring Of Honor Show has been released on dvd, in chronological order, and there are many collectors who this page would be useful to. If this page gets deleted, they might as well delete every page about WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA pay-per-view events and video releases.207.69.139.144 05:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ring of Honor (like many indy promotions) releases DVDs on their own website and a few others. That's not very notable. Any group producing a DVD and releasing it online shouldn't be put on Wikipedia as a list page. With WWE and the big promotions: they sell it to actual stores, and it's released in many countries (if not worldwide). RobJ1981 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft with no encyclopedic value. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On what basis do you define notable? ROH runs shows worldwide, and judging on the basis that they aren't on TV is wrong in this case, as the company does not want to be on TV. The DVDs are shipped worldwide and sold in independent shops all over the world and the company is covered in all wrestling media. As I said this page was deleted accidentally, the pages on the individual events were deleted on the basis that this list was enough and the guy who deleted the other pages did this one by mistake.--[email protected] 16:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're not discussing deleting an article on the promotion itself, we're discussing deleting a list of shows they have run. Please demonstrate what encyclopedic value this list has. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same as the lists for say the original ECW, also there are lists on Wikipedia of games released for old games consoles, how does this have less encyclopedic value?

Comment Again, please try discussing this article, WP:INN and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are relevant here. What encyclopedic value does this list have? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has encyclopedic value for wrestling fans, it is a notable promotion with a large following. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm a huge wrestling fan, and this list has ZERO value for me.

Strong Delete ROH names every one of their shows, so this is basically a list of every show run by an indy fed (even if ROH were a big wrestling fed, I vote vote Delete just like I did for a list of ECW events). TJ Spyke 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The shows are NN so is the list NBeale 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights for Young Offenders[edit]

This article is a full-text document of a United Nations proposal, so it fails WP:NOT. I suggest that, if it's historically notabled, it may be transwikied to Wikisource. YechielMan 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If legally possible, transwiki to Wikisource. ~~If not, delete in its current incarnation.~~ No stance on new text. ~~-- saberwyn 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)~~ -- saberwyn 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if possible, or convert to prose. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, and post relevant links. Extremely notable in that it made Canada's young offender laws hard to implement. Plus, it's part of UN's Bill of rights. Thus, move to wikisource. George Leung 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have given it a big overhaul. What say you now? - Richard Cavell 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki the old version to Wikisource, keep the new one as a valid article on a notable subject. MER-C 08:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new version, transwiki the text of the old. This stub could use expansion, but that will come with time, I'm sure. It would be interesting to know whether it has been used as the basis for reforming juvenile codes anywhere, for instance. Brianyoumans 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a law student, I can confirm that it forms the basis for major reforms to Australian and Canadian law. I'm a bit busy with other articles to take this one on, though. - Richard Cavell 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not really reform but hindering, but I am soapboxing. George Leung 01:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article as it covers an important topic. Mr. Berry 07:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant topic. Metamagician3000 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 Winters[edit]

Non notable band, speedy deleted on 1 March 2007. The author has recreated it, which is tantamount to contesting the speedy - see the talk page. Richard Cavell 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating:

Delete non notable band, non notable members, the sources are a store and their website. Low google hits [26].--Paloma Walker 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With all due respect, that's a crock. Band members are barely notable, true, but do me a favor and search on google. Guarenteed you'll get at least 50 results. Most of which are reviews, stores such as AMG and amazon, lyric sites such as Darklyrics.com, interviews, and videos. Also, I'd like to see you try to form a band and submit the lyrics to Darklyrics.com Seriously, try it, be cause you can't, and If you do I'd like to see it. Then and only then do you have room to talk. 13 Winters is just as, if not more notable than Demilich, or Entombed --Emevas 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; they are non-notable. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No offense, but I'd like to see a plausable, legit, and convincing reason. --Emevas 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomination; they are notable. I have gone into the listing and provided notable sources listed here on Wiki. They have existed for half a decade. They dominate the first fifteen pages on Google.[27] You don't use quotes in a search engine unless you are looking for a quote. -- User: darkvalleyrecords(UTC)

Comment It doesn't help your case though that you deleted the AfD notice which means it's unlikely that many people will come here to comment. I've restored it now, but you should bear in mind for the future that you're not supposed to delete that notice. StuartDouglas 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness is a virtue my friend, I'm sure it was just a mistake. --Emevas 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I know it was - the editor said so, below. :-) StuartDouglas 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, Sorry about that. I over writed the page's code from a project file I was using to build the page with and didn't realize that was included with the original code I wrote over. It wasn't my intent to come off as misleading. darkvalleyrecords (UTC)

Delete You use quotes when you're looking for an exact match. Completely non notable band, fails WP:ATT for attribution and reliable sources, as well as being a valid CSDa7 in the first place. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References section just point to the wiki pages for the various sites, but this is author error rather than deliberately misleading I suspect which I'll fix just now. Band has an AMG listing and two purchasable CDs so seem notable enough to me. Indivudal band members are likely not though. StuartDouglas 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - for what it is worth, they seem to have reviews in a number of different sites and magazines. There's a few featured here-K@ngi e ^meep! 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fervently Strong Keep: Band is notable as a Goth Metal Band. They have an all music entry a couple of music videos and a seemingly large following. Definately not a bedroom recording band. --Emevas 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per K@ngi e's point. Band should be given a fair trial as an entry. XKrozz 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure rather to be flattered or insulted by the fact that you used "Self Promotional" to describe the article. I submitted the article, I am a fan of the band, but I am in no way a member of (Nor directly affiliated with) the band 13 Winters. I havn't even met the members in person yet (As much as I'd love to). So "Self Promotional" is directly ruled out. Who would be desparate enough to stoop to such a low? --Emevas 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think labelling the contributions of someone taking part in this very AFD who has behaved very civil as "self promotional" toes the line of failing to WP:AGF... it also doesn't add anything to the debate-K@ngi e ^meep! 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also, I'm very surprised that anyone would now say they were non-notable. I don; tlike metal in any of its forms, but this band certainly seem to be notable enough examples of the genre. StuartDouglas 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgecore[edit]

An article at this name was speedy deleted at its AfD. This is a new article by a new author on the same subject. Leuko thought it eligible for speedy as a recreation of deleted material, but I say it is not speediable because the first debate was speedied and in any case this is an entirely new article. I express no opinion on whether it should be deleted and nominate it pro forma. - Richard Cavell 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4: Deleted at AfD. Also, non-notable neogolism with no reliable sources. WP:SNOW anyone? Leuko 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 clearly does not apply to items that are speedied in the first instance, and only applies to content that is a substantial recreation. G4 does not apply. - Richard Cavell 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I assumed it was a substantial recreation from reading the summaries in the deletion log. CSD#A7 then. Leuko 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It shouldnt be deleted because there are links to a website about it so it is obviously a real sport. There are also pictures and videos on that website of people hedgediving so that shows you that its real. Also, a popular ska-punk band called Operation Ivy wrote a song about it and talked about it in the interview that there is a link to in the article. - written by Mr. tippie, the article's author.
Delete - While this is all well and good, none of those purport to make the concept anything more than non-notable neologism. Also, I could swear there was a prior AFD about this, and it was deleted. --Haemo 05:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was, hence the "second nomination." The article was speedy deleted at AfD last time. Leuko 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteja-vu, as when it was deleted five days ago, WP:NFT. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hedgediving is a real sport and believe it or not alot of people do it. It is featured on many hit TV shows and deserves to have a page dedicated to it so people know what it's about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melanieee (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete non notable, neologism. It's not on ESPN either. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neoglism WP:NEO No notable sources. Not verifiable.--Dacium 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring any reliable, independent sources. I don't consider the website about it to be a good source. Mango juice^talk 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again As it fails the fundemental policy of attribution, seeming to be both WP:original research that fails to provide reliable sources and something made up in school one day. Also, the use of process to encourage an obvious WP:SNOWBALL is a poor use of admin tools. NeoFreak 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut it out. I was cruising candidates for speedy deletion, and removed Leuko's speedy tag because this does not fall under any criterion. The article is entitled to have its day in AfD. - Richard Cavell 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cut it out? You have a problem with my having a problem? Interesting. This superfluous AfD isn't helping anyone. I'll state my opinion about the process of wikipedia and this AfD, in a tacful manner, when I like, that's my prerogative as an editor in good standing. NeoFreak 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fully support moving this article to AfD. Speedy deletion is supposed to be construed narrowly. Consensus hasn't apparently changed here, but it can. Mangojuice^talk 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure. Get back to me when this closes. Then again maybe we'll have a revolutionary shift in plolicy in the next three days. Maybe this will prove to be something other than a misuse of process and a waste of time. NeoFreak 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neoligisms need sources. Plus, last time I dove into a hedge, it was called "hiding". Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- something made up one day. When it's in the Olympics, perhaps -- till then, no! -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Hedgecore is alive and well, and myself and many of my friends do it. Although there may not be olympic hedgediving, it is still a part of people's lifes, and deserves an entry on wikipedia. Please don't delete this article. If you want more proof that hedgecore exists, go on youtube and look up hedgecore, look at the hedgecore website at operationivy.com, or the forums on hedgecore at operationivy.com. you will see that there are hedgedivers all over america. —The preceding Nate comment was added by 71.254.7.130 (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC). — 71.254.7.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and prevent re-creation. WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Brandon, Florida. Picaroon 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Regional Library[edit]

The library doesn't assert notability beyond your typical city library. All all libraries, like all high schools, considered notable by their existence, or are they held to the general standard? (I don't mean to raise the can of worms with WP:SCHOOL, but I'm interested in the comparison between schools and libraries. YechielMan 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its community's article, but don't delete so that the article name stays available in case the library becomes notable. I've been thinking about the differences between libraries and schools, and the arguments I'd use for high schools I wouldn't use for libraries. Let them prove notability like any other subject. The material in the article would be a fine section in a town or city article. Noroton 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Libraries are not inherently notable, this article does not make a strong case for notability or cite independent sources, and there is not enough content to warrant a merge. --Metropolitan90 07:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brandon, Florida. Not a particularily famous or important library on a worldwide basis, and the article is only a paragraph long, but still covering the various cultural and educational institutions within the community article is valid. (For comparison, I'll mention that the library system in Oslo, Deichmanske Bibliotek has a separate article in my Norwegian paper encyclopedia, and in this encyclopedia but that is a city-wide system of libraries, not a single building.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably work best in Hillsborough County Public Library Cooperative, I think the regional library systems are generally going to all have articles eventually. Mention in the town or just redirect until then, to preserve history. --W.marsh 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as a topic not suitable for an encyclopedia. Maybe an extended yellow pages wiki could make use of this article. Mr. Berry 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing notable is even hinted at. In the extremely unlikely event that this library becomes notable, the name can be resurrected. There's no point holding article names for the indefinite future. (As for a suggestion above, I think an article on the country library cooperative would have exactly the same problem. I certainly would support an effort to examine very critically articles on regional library systems below the state or large metropolitan area level, though there are a few that are indeed notable. (The only two I can think of offhand is Hennepin County Library, which needs an article--but in the meantime see Sanford Berman, and the Brooklyn Public Library. ) DGG 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LEAVE THIS ARTICE ALONE! - User:Prince of History I removed the more lengthy diatribe, which I considered inappropriate for a civil discussion. YechielMan 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Brandon, Florida per Sjakkalle and others. Burntsauce 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Conner[edit]

This page was speedy-deleted for lack of notability. The speedy-deletion has been challenged. This is a procedural nomination. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete (see indent below) Five books and regular appearances on television sounds notable unless we can be given some reason to doubt these claims or the books are self-published. The article has citation problems which should be fixed, but I don't see a "citation" tag to prompt editors. That step should be tried before deletion. Noroton 06:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find reputable sources, although Google News Archives brings up at least one article from The Age. Since it's only an article for sale, I don't know if it's just a trivial reference (and the headline doesn't indicate the story is necessarily about him). So I'll go along with delete. Noroton 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me the title, I can look it up. I have fixed the newspaper references using a citation template from WP:CITET (further help welcome). Natebailey 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reputable sources provided. Smee 07:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no reputable sources, and the meaning of "published books" in the church ministry world is different than in the literature world: a published church book could be a 8 page, hand stapled essay on some church topic, published under the church's "publishing" agency. Ditto for the TV, ministry is usually on public access or local non-cable channels. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't the references in The Age and Charisma reputable? Natebailey 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If they were about him, then they would be. But one of them only mentions him in passing while talking about christmas - that's not a reference, it's a mention. It makes him look less notable, not more.Garrie 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fair enough. From another tack, do those articles establish him as an authority that the press regularly turns to for comment on church and religious issues? (which would establish notability?) Natebailey 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment While that may be sensible and logical, it's not in accordance with WP:BIO that repeated trivial mention of a person, establishes notability for a biographical article. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability (WP:BIO#Primary criterion)This is what the references you are referring to, provide.Ga rr ie 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love it when I'm right. Books are published under Conner ministries publications. Other "notable" authors within that church include his wife and his son. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged it as a speedy delete because I don't consider doing your job to be notable. If your job is to be a pastor, that's good. If you are pastor at a large church, that's fine, too. If you publish a ton of books, that's rather meaningless in the age of print-on-demand, and it's not even very meaningful in niche publication markets like "spirituality." Therefore, it looked to me like some guy doing his stuff. I'm sure he has a ton of charisma, at least in one sense, but the authors look like the subjects, and the entirety looks so puffy that I suspected a boosterist agenda, and that combined with no serious claim for notability to make a speedy delete candidate. Utgard Loki 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia, so I recommend Delete. Mr. Berry 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not reall 4 an encyclopedia. self promo? delete , amen --Zedco 11:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mark has a national profile in the Australian church community; this is poorly reflected online. He teaches at churches and conferences in Australia, Singapore, the US and elsewhere. He has roles on a range of national boards. I am seeking further substantiation to support his notability. Natebailey 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are now nine citations from The Age and several other citations. Natebailey 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentI am removing all the citations that are about christmas, faith and politics. I will leave the ones in that are about Mark Conner, rather than just mentioning him in passing.Ga rr ie 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I added one of the books. We don't really have any criteria for ministers of religion, and I'm not sure of this one. But it certainly wasn't a valid speedy. It was not undoubtedly non-notable. Prod might have been more appropriate. DGG 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior pastor in one of Australia' largest churches, with large profile to match. Multiple media certs. Raffles mk 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Released a CD as part of the Integrity/Hosanna series that was popular about 15 years ago - see [28]. Mark Conner was the only Australian pastor to be involved in that series. Raffles mk 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Garrie.--cj | talk 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latualatuka chain letter[edit]

This page was inappropriately deleted under speedy-deletion criterion G1. It is not patent nonsense in the narrow way we use that term here. The page was procedurally restored in order to list here. Rossami (talk)

Delete as a non-notable and unsourced hoax. The assertion that this is a "hugely successful chain letter and internet meme" is patently false. Real internet memes return many millions of Google hits. (For all its failings, the google test is a highly reliable negative test for internet-based phenomena.) This returns 333. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are many and changing internet memes which can be covered in a single page better than as seperate articles.Dave 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. No evidence that any reputable publications have commented on it. The creation of an article here is this hoax's attempt to cause still further annoyance in the world. EdJohnston 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 79,800 Google hits for Latualatuka - more than most other entries in Category:Internet_memes; lack of notable sources, though. --Ariovistus 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Run your google search again and you'll find that there are far fewer non-duplicative hits (333 yesterday, all the way up to 410 today). The 79,800 on the front page is a mis-estimate that sometimes happens from the google algorithms. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and incredibly annoying. There are thousands of variations of chain letters like this one. None of them are individually notable or important. --- RockMFR 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since chain letters are not worthy of any recognition, what-so-ever. Mr. Berry 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete chain letters are not notable Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send the deletion to 3 other encyclopaedias. Otherwise this cruft will spread -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Cinema[edit]

~~Appears to be a list of mostly non notable actors.~~Seeing as this went up for deletion a year ago (no consensus) and hasn't improved much I figured I would nominate it again. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nomination withdrawn.~~ Without the long list of actors we have a reasonable article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is compromise is not acceptable to some editors. I guess I will have to withdraw my withdrawal. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Sideshow Cinema entry contains a list of Michael Legge's stable of actors. This list includes award winning actors and actors who have appeared in award winning films. They are notable in the independent movie making world of which I am a fan. The article gives a good thumbnail bio on the actors. I will point out this entry Allegan Community Players which gives no background information on any of the actors and is just a list of names of actors who played in community theater. This article is much better. Plank 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If individual actors are notable then by all mean they should have their own articles. If Sideshow Cinema is notable then it should have a real article that demonstrates it's notability. The Allegan Community players article should probably be deleted to and in any case the presence of worse articles is not a reason to keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article needs to be expanded to be more than just a list of actors. This is a notable group, and a number of the individuals listed (such as Debbie Rochon) are notable enough to warrant their own articles, which would serve to shorten the actor list section a bit. 23skidoo 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article has been sitting for a year without anyone adding any source. Instead of just saying it is notable some one should put up some references and I can withdraw the nomination. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article isn't even about Sideshow Cinema, rather it's an article showcasing amateur (unpaid) actors who don't qualify for articles on the own. Many have been deleted only to be recreated here. This is much like having an article on a random Restaurant in the form of mini-bios on the entire staff. In addition, the assertion that anything having to do with this is "award-winning" is a bit misleading. We're talking B-movie awards of very limited notability here, not the Oscars. If any of the "actors" listed do warrant articles of their own that's a different issue. Most do not. -R. fiend 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry
Comment The problem is not that this article is not sourced but that the sources have little reference to the actual subject of the article. The sources are generally about the actors in the list. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~with suggestion~~. Keep the article, but delete everything except the introduction and the sources. Note some of the most prominent members of the "stable of actors" in one sentence. In fact, I will do so right now; please revert me if my change goes too far. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have performed the edit. The sourced information of the previous version is still present in the edit history and, if this AFD closes as 'no consensus' or 'keep', I intend to merge some of it into relevant biographical articles. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, my recommendation to keep stands regardless of whether the actor-specific information is retained or removed. If that information is to be kept (to which I'm not necessarily opposed), I think the main issue is to improve the manner in which it is presented. -- Black Falcon 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether or not an encyclopaedic article on this subject can be written is a matter for debate, but this is not it, and this contains little if anything that would contribute towards that. It seems at present to be largely comprised of actor bios for people who completely fail WP:BIO, and in some cases at least is being used as an end-run around deletion policy by including content which has been deleted when added as separate articles. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott F Jackson[edit]

Recreated speedy delete. Obvious conflict of interest. Appears to be non notable. No sources provided and unlikely that many exist Daniel J. Leivick 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. However, note that tagging for speedy doesn't place it solely in the WP-admin realm. The Speedy pink-box tells us "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Removing a speedy tag is allowed by any editor other than the article's creator/primary author. I don't know the history here, are we assuming bad-faith or sock-puppetry by User:WhiteKongMan? DMacks 07:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteKongMan created the first Jackson page which was speedied. Given the limited exposure this person has and the striking similarities between WhiteKongMan's user page and the Jackson article I don't think it is much of a stretch to assume that he is Jackson or at least a friend. In any case the article has more problems than conflict of interest and recreation issues. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. DMacks 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. If the article hadn't already afd'd, I'd have speedied it. Lupo 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is my user page and the Jackson article similiar. And I only know about Scott because I did an interview on him for my high school's newspaper last year.

WhiteKongMan WhiteKongMan 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to argue about this, the article does not meet Wikipedia policy. I was trying to clarify to DMacks why I warned you against removing the speedy tag. It appears that you have a connection to the subject of the article in question and the page posted by the subject is identical to the one that you posted awhile back. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO - the channel that his show was aired on is the Quincy Public Schools' local cable channel, usually devoted to airing videotapes of recent school events (concerts, etc) and occasionally used for showing whatever projects the AV club students create. As for his "editor" job, a freshman undergrad contributing to the college radio station, while being a pretty cool job, doesn't establish notability. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. In point of fact, I'm a resident of Quincy, MA, and was alerted to this AfD as a consequence of the creator trying to stick this guy on as one of the major internal links for the Quincy, Massachusetts article. As it happens, Channel 22 is the Quincy cable TV public access education channel. I even watch it sometimes, and I didn't know this kid from a hole in the ground. The article claims that Jackson is an editor at the Emerson College TV station, but Emerson's callsign is WERS, not WEBM, and as one of the premier communication schools in the country I find it unlikely that a freshman would get to be an editor of the school's TV station. RGTraynor 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He works for WEBN, Emerson's television network where he edits highlights and helps write the script WhiteKongMan 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that his show was on a local access channel shouldn't be held against him. everyone has to start somewhere. Plus, I've seen WEBN Sports on television (its broadcast in winthrop and at emerson i guess) and they do a fine job. Get off his back everyone146.115.47.242 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alright, what elements of WP:BIO do you and WhiteKongMan figure this chap fulfills?

"* Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers

A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following
A credible independent biography
Wide name recognition
Commercial endorsements of notable products"

Let us know. That being said, we now have WP:SOCK into play, seemingly, with a first time edit. Beyond that, seriously, Emerson College has no formal TV station, and a search of its website turns up no hits for "WEBN." No such call letters turn up in the Boston region at all [29]. No such station turns up on the cable provider serving Winthrop [30] A directed Google search for a "Scott Jackson" in Quincy (excluding the New York Giants, because there's a football player by that name, apparently) turns up zero hits. Anything else? RGTraynor 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteYou people need to get lives. WEBN isn't linked to the emerson site but its mentioned on this list (http://www.ap.org/ma-ri/Broadcast/broadcast.html) Theres a football named Scott Jackson? either learn about american culture or don't post on this site. Also, what ddo endorsments have to do with anything? Gandi and Lincoln didnt do endorsments

Comment: Unsigned anon IP 199.94.73.221 has a set pattern of page blanking and vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RGTraynor (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO, and the information doesn't have reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clearly unnotable person, though with a better-constructed article than usual for such. I think it was a fully justified speedy.DGG 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It His determinatio and the fact that he has been able to meet so any professional athletes makes him notable. In the future we may need to write another article on him 199.94.94.20 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as verifiable and expanded article. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chambersburg Area Senior High School[edit]

Chambersburg Area Senior High School is the sole high school of a tiny town in rural Pennsylvania. It fails all three counts of the (not accepted) WP:Schools policy. It has not been the subject of a non-trivial work, it has no notable alumni, it has not gained recognition for special achievements, and it has no special architectural history. Moving on to the more general WP:Notability criteria, a Google search [31] reveals that there are no published works available on the Internet with Chambersburg Area Senior High School as their primary focus, except primary sources published by the school itself and its associated organizations. Finally, the article has already been merged into Chambersburg#Chambersburg Area Senior High School. Looking through Chambersburg Area Senior High School's edit history reveals that a fairly large number of the edits are vandals or non-sense. Merging the article will ensure that more people will see the content and be able to revert the vandals faster. The current article should be left as a redirect to Chambersburg. Tbjablin 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm confused by this nom...if the content is already merged and you want the page to be a redirect, then just do so. That is just a normal page-content edit...don't need to be in AfD world, since you're not trying to delete the whole page from existing at all. DMacks 07:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've redirected the article three times already, but people keep reverting the change. I was asked on Talk:Chambersburg Area Senior High School to bring the article up on AFD to get a resolution on whether to redirect, leave as is, or delete. Tbjablin 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the town since its been merged. There are other tools in the toolbox for dealing with non-notability than outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to local school district or town per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect (as per Tbjablin's comment just below) all high schools are notable, as I argue here; ~~this article has been improved in just the past few weeks.~~ Noroton 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would advise you to examine the "improvements" in the article more closely. The first paragraph has been copied three times with minute variation to make the article appear bulkier. Notice that the school's enrollment of 1,800 is mentioned three times once in each of the article's three paragraphs. It's pretty obvious that no one is paying attention to this article. I think it would be better patrolled by maintaining it in the subsection it currently occupies in inside the Chambersburg article. Tbjablin 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Vote changed. I hadn't looked hard enough. Thanks! Noroton 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. — RJH (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Tbjablin 00:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the town. LordHarris 02:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sources added to the article demonstrate notability. Article has been edited to eliminate redundancy issues, and presence of vandalism is an invalid reason for deletion. The article stands on its own. Alansohn 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is somewhat lengthened, there is no additional content (or any references) regarding article's primary focus, the high school. The additional material focuses on a single high school athlete, who is borderline noteworthy in her own right. Tbjablin 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A statewide award to the principal, a national ranking for a sports team, and national recognition for an athlete are all strong claims of notability for the school itself, with reliable and verifiable sources provided. Notability has been established to Wikipedia standards. Alansohn 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has clear notability by WP:NOTE, in that it is an important local place. Small town or not, it has a population of 1800 students, and is clutch to the town. Google news alone has 106 hits pertaining to the school. Part Deux 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a more narrow search. The top hit of your search was [32] which has nothing to do with the high school in question. Many other news articles happen to contain the words Chambersburg, high, and school in no particular order and of no relevance to the topic. Tbjablin 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is more specific: [33]. Though many of the mentions are trivial, many aren't; it's clear this is an important icon to the community. Part Deux 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No real opinion, but I may have stepped in something here by accident by cutting the CASHS section in Chambersburg, PA by about half, to a very short paragraph. Feel free to revert this back to the longer paragraph. Actually, I think the larger paragraph on the Coyle Free Library is more appropriate than a full paragraph on the HS, but I'm not a high school student. Smallbones 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now it has been sourced up it demonstates notability and fully justifies its own article. TerriersFan 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to whatever school district it is a part of, and move all lengthy school district description copy in it. Remove from the MUNICIPALITY's article (I guess thats a split technically). ccwaters 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the article was renamed to Schools in the Chambersburg Area and included data on public and private schools in Chambersburg and the surrounding area? We could move most fo the current section on schools from the Chambersburg article, which I believe may have grown overlong. (Excepting of course Wilson College which is deserving of its own article.) Tbjablin 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough press references to this particular high school to justify an article of its own. Some high schools are notable. This is considerable more article-worthy than most the the elementary school articles we have been seeing.DGG 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The article is growing. Give it time. Wikihermit 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG's explanation. WikiIstari 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been rewritten; notability is now expressed through reliable sources, meeting our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewritten version appears to pass our requirements. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of group stock characters[edit]

Like Video game item clichés before it, this is just an unattributed original research. Also likely counts as an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unattributed OR. Arkyan 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep language changes and any mention of groups is a changing subject and liable to be without support from past experiences. this is an excellent try at describing groups for a writers mode of thinking. although not the normal mode of thinking and certainly not the mode of the average thinker writers do have a mode of thinking that is differant and deserves consideration. classifications of words in a dictionary or encyclopedia should include topics that challenge the imagination of the reader. i would agree with delete if the information was wrong. but the information is correct. i have been doing research using the wikipedia the free encyclopedia and have found it amusing and very useful. learning differant ideas from other people is the source of learning. this is definately a differant idea. if you wish to edit it by all means do so. if you wish to add to it by all means do so. this is a commentary that is worthy of the debates in the us senate and congress. psycologist would find list of groups a fasination. even if those groups were fictional. socialologist would find list of groups a fasinating subject. groups of people wanting something more than "I" would find the listing better than nothing... i know i am outvoted by the deletes above but i beg of you to reconsider. this is a job well done that might be better but it does not diserve to be deleted on the basis that "groups" is not diserving of a try at describing them... there is a comment that the article must be attributable to a reliable source... this article list each example as a reliable source. each example is a reliable source. so the argument that this article has no reliable source is not exactly correct... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.225.46 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- ...What? JuJube 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr[edit]

Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note.

AFD started: 20 March 2007

Nomination statement

This article previously survived 2 AFDs. In both the first AFD, and the 2nd AFD - the result was Keep. Recently, a discussion was brought up to merge the entire article into the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The discussion is at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements. This AFD will serve to formally discuss the appropriateness or lack thereof of any such "Merge." Smee 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on nom statement

Comment on nom statement - While the stated purpose of this AfD as a discussion of a merge is decidedly odd and may be misuse of the AfD process, I think that there is sufficient question as to the notability of the subject to warrant this AfD, irrespective of the outcome of previous AfDs. It is odd that an AfD is being brought by a nom that thinks the article should be kept and, again, I wonder if it is a misuse of the process. It might be more appropriate if this AfD were resubmitted by an editor that feels that the article should be deleted and perhaps this AfD should be "shelved" pending such a submittal. --Justanother 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - No, actually it is a used practice to send an article you think is notable to AFD, in order to "test" its notability as a standalone article. This is most certainly appropriate, specifically because "Merge" discussions commonly take place within AFD discussions. Smee 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was indeed a clever move and I support it. If the article survives this AfD, I hope that it will stop similar moves once and for all. --Tilman 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the intention - to have a referendum once and for all on whether to Keep, or Merge or Delete the article in question... Smee 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD discussion

COMMENT: -- As nom, I will not "vote" a particular sentiment, though I do think the subject is notable and the article is certainly adequately sourced with reputable secondary sourced citations. However I will state that this action of the merge discussion at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements, and the placing of the merge tags at the 2 associated articles and the constant re-adding of them amounts to a revenge/harassment tactic, as delineated by the subject of the article, User:Tilman. Smee 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep subject is notable for other things than cult opposition ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Keep Since Tilman and I have worked/are working together this isn't a formal vote, even though an AfD isn't supposed to be a "vote" anyway. If Tilman Hausherr were only a critic of Scientology, I'd agree with the merge proposal. After all, he would belong in such a category if that was all that could be known for. In my opinion his software development and the coverage it has received clearly makes him notable for more than being a Scientology critic.
Hausherr's Xenu's Link Sleuth software was called the "fastest link-checking software" by PC Magazine.
To be fair though, since he did include the name "Xenu's" I understand why some Scientologists may feel he is a full time critic. However such people are most likely forgetting that the bulk of time spent on the application involves programming/coding, the name is almost an afterthought. (Which means if a person spends 100 hours developing a program, and then takes two seconds to call it the no FAT chicks file manager, said person could be called insensitive but would have to be called a developer. Especially if the software works.) Anynobody 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable in the anti-cult world, and the article is adequately sourced from third party publications. I'd argue that the article is keepable on this basis alone, irrespective of the notability of Hausherr's software. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no new arguments that weren't already examined and rejected in the first two AfDs, which frankly makes this seem quite like an attempt to get around the results of the first two AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why would you propose a deletion (AFD) to settle a merge debate. Wouldn't a merge be prefereable to a deletion? I still support a merge with a redirect from Tilman to Opposition to cults. I am not very familiar with AFDs. I don't know what this means for the merge, but in order to be fair go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements#Tilman_Hausherr_merge John196920022001 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:John196920022001, if you feel that the article should be merged, then you should change your sentiment from "Keep" to "Merge." Smee 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks. John196920022001 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, wasn't sure if you knew you could do that... Smee 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Non-notable critic of Scientology with a couple of minor mentions; also he has a website and a lawyer sent him a letter (dime a dozen). Non-notable developer of one bit of non-notable software that got a magazine mention five years ago (again both are dime a dozen). The non-notability of Xenu's Link Sleuth is abundantly pointed out by the fact that, other than the five-year old magazine mention, the main "source" to establish notability is of the sort; "someone actually used it". --Justanother 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was likely featured in PC-Welt magazine sometime in fall 2006, since they asked me for permission. Your "five years ago" theory is because that was all you could find. I suggest you look further, and also at google print. [34] --Tilman 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Tilman added a Google Books search to his existing comment so I will speak to that) Add Xenu to the search as in Xenu+"Link Sleuth" and you get five hits [35]. These sorts of books list tons of programs for web design and maintenance; often including a CD chock full of freeware and shareware. Not particularly notable. --Justanother 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to write "Xenu's", that is why. Some don't write His name at all: [36]. These books mention the shareware that is relevant, i.e. notable. The hit counter (which is administered by the ISP software, not by me) of the Xenu page is at over a million. [37] --Tilman 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page illustrates my point - non-notable software in a sea of similar non-notable software. The hit counter is illustrative of the synergy Tilman Hausherr developed by linking unrelated software to the internet meme of Xenu. I do not know if Tilman Hausherr is notable for being the first to promote the criticism of another person's religion by means of naming an unrelated software program (I will spare you the analogies I can dream up) but I doubt that we will find RS crediting Tilman Hausherr with that "honor" anyway. (Not to mention the software and this article promoting Tilman Hausherr's reprehensible attempts to blacklist and cause trouble for ordinary public Scientologists.) --Justanother 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, I am simply basing that on the article as is appropriate. If there is more notability then add it. --Justanother 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not allowed to edit my own article. I am thankful for others who do, and who make constructive changes and additions. --Tilman 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, according to policy, you can provide the information, links and documentation so someone else can edit it John196920022001 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad to help to expand the article with more RSes ClaudeReigns 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am Tilman Hausherr, so no vote. The orginal merge request was made in bad faith and is part of a campaign against me, examples: [38][39][40][41][42]. Since I've been active in several fields, it is ridiculous to merge the article in the "cult opposition" article, which does not even have a "people" section. --Tilman 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn.... Delete Misou 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misou, please provide a reason or your "vote" will carry no weight. Thanks.Justanother 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, ok: "Non-notable critic of Scientology with a couple of minor mentions and no relevance on whatever happens with Scientology in the world. He is also a Non-notable developer of one bit of non-notable software which he is not even trying to sell." Likes cats, which is notable and nice, but not for an encyclopedia. Misou 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Is notable enough to have a fair few pages linking to him, and since the article (briefly) covers both his work as a software developer and as an anti-Scientology campaigner, a merge to either would be confusing. Iridescenti 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; it is true that most of Hausherr's notability derives primarily from his anti-Scientology campaigning. However, as per Iridescenti's point above, the fact that his program has received notable coverage as well means that a simple redirect would be inappropriate. I also applaud Mr. Hausherr for handling this in the proper fashion and avoiding WP:COI. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I certainly don't think a merge is appropriate. There is at least some verifiable information that shows that subject is notable in more than one field. Vivaldi (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, propaganda, but a week delete ;-)... Although I think Tilman as a close circle of friends or a club, having an article on Wikipedia can only help increase someone's responsibility and this is highly needed in that case --Jpierreg 11:05, 21 March 2007 (GMT)
Strong keep -NOT merge- and desperately ask for vandalism protection. I don't know anything about Tilmann Hausherr besides what the article points to, but from all the discussion I've seen, he must be a Golden God for warranting so much hostile attention. I read the conversations and gape incredulously. ^O^ ClaudeReigns 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that our new notability standard is "Amount of talk page discussion and dispute". Then I guess Brian Peppers deserves to be enshrined on the Wikipedia home page as Permanent Featured Article instead of deleted and salted forever. --Justanother 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the sarcasm. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. Smee 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Mr. Reigns is employing a bit of sarcasm himself. Why not warn him, too? (Just a joke, Claude, I don't mind just so long as you are willing to get as much as you give) --Justanother 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Mr. Smee, looking at Mr. Reign's edit history here; it is clear to me that he is no newcomer and that is equally obvious from his post here. So WP:BITE hardly applies for a second reason; not only was there no real bite, there is no real newcomer. The only thing real here, Mr. Smee, is your inappropriate and mettlesome "warning". Hold on, Mr. Smee. Weren't you warned about not picking fights with me? --Justanother 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ClaudeReigns contribution history, the first edit was less than 20 days ago. Therefore this is a new user. Therefore please assume good faith, and stop violating Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks. Smee 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What's sarcasm? :D Is there an agp talk page?? :| No, really, I'm determined to learn more about Tilman (one l) Hausherr. Please observe my philosophy of wikipedia. For all I know, Mr. Hausherr, having only 5 Yahoo hits, might be a figment of our imagination, or a very important figure in understanding the methods of Scientology against its critics. Only time will tell. There is plenty of time to decide whether he deserves enshrinenment as a cultbuster or urban legend. Sweeping information under our electronic rug will not serve either such purpose. Please allow me time to eat Mr. Hausherr. For myself, it is only day 17. I find comparisons between Hausherr and misshapenly and developmentally disabled sex offenders to be ROFL amusing but a highly inappropriate personal attack against the alleged Mr. Hausherr. Brian Peppers [43] That I had to go offsite for a breakdown of that tasteless little piece of internet history is only proof that I'm on the right track. Citing a 'non-notable' subject to prove why things are notable and not-notable? Please tie my brain in a knot, now. No, don't explain. I don't want to be clear! _{not all projects should have pictures attached. *trembles in corner* this is why we call it abuse....} ClaudeReigns 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still... barfing... someone punish Justanother for putting that image in my head! Ok, now I'm kidding. :D ClaudeReigns 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come out of the corner, Claude. Look, I have a cookie. Don't you want the cookie? Good, while you enjoy the cookie, let me mention that Mr. Peppers is reknowned in Wikipedia lore for the amount of digital "ink" generated here over whether he should have an article. You can Google here for a taste. That is why I mention him in reply to the specious argument that the amount of chatter here has anything to do with anything. --Justanother 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's discuss the article, not each other. Notable scientologists are appropriate subjects for WP articles.So are notable opponents. This article is about a particularly effective ~~proponent~~ opponent. It is adequately sourced, and the notability has been fully shown. There's also notability in other fields. Just as it is unfair to lump all scientologists into the same group, so it is unfair to do the same with the opponents. —DGG 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and what is this person notable for again?--Sefringle 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xenu Link Sleuth is popular free software for findng broken URLs on web pages. The subject's personal web site is also an information resource about cults in the German language, as well as in English. I note also there is nothing in the WP article about the OPC or harming tourism, thus no WP:RS exists to support this commonly spammed libel about the subject. Article meets WP:BLP. Finally, it is inappropriate to merge this article into Opposition to cults and new religious movements since the subject is just as notable for Xenu Link Sleuth as he is for publishing data about cults which pretend to be religions. Orsini 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's not clear how notable a living person has to be in order to be "notable", beyond being the subject of verifiable published references. Wikipedia includes hundreds of articles on minor and ephemeral figures in the worlds of sport and entertainment; considering Tilman's conspicuous presence on the web over the past decade, he is surely more notable than some of these. Wikipedia has a role in answering questions like "Who is Tilman Hausherr, anyway?" DavidCooke 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Orsini. Robertissimo 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as others have said, notability has been estabilished in more than one area, so a simple merger is not appropriate. Breaking up the information into articles on the separate subjects would make it harder to determine who Hausherr is. -Aleta 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Human extinction. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicide[edit]

Not notable neologism that seems to be derived from the title of a single book. Possibly advert for that book. Selket ^Talk 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cat-ed this page, but on closer examination, it appears to be a fairly non-notable neologism. Lankiveil 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: 111 google scholar hits, some predating the book. Pavel Vozenilek 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human extinction possibly? FiggyBee 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The word is in general use, albiet rare, and dates back at least to 1959; see the Oxford English Dictionary. Definitely not an advert for the book, sorry if it seemed that way. Relevant in the context of genocide studies. I can improve this page in a few days. Chris Powell 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've improved the page slightly by adding more citations to use and two category links. It is still a stub and needs expansion, but I hope it's now evident by that this is not a one-of neologism? Christopher Powell 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention in human extinction. — Omegatron 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with human extinction. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The concept is relevant in social sciences, where there is some literature around it, and ideally it deserves its own page. It is more of a sociology stub than a linguistics stub. But since I am not personally conversant in that literature and so not able to do the work, I will concede if the editors wish to remove it to the human extinction page for the time being. Christopher Powell 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, I have made some edits and the page is now a bit more substantial, so I would like to advocate for its retention. 'Omnicide' is an obscure concept, but that's not unusual for encyclopedia entries. Christopher Powell 16:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent improvements (see diff). The use of the term in multiple book/journal article titles suggests it is not a neologism per WP:NEO and discredits the notion that its intent is to advertise a single book. -- Black Falcon 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. I just noticed that the bulk of the changes (see diff) occurred after users FiggyBee, Omegatron, and Smmurphy had commented. The version they commented on was this, for which I too would have suggested merging/redirecting. -- Black Falcon 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems to be well-written, but is there a need for more than one article on the same subject? One possible resolution might be to merge the articles by replacing the first section of the human extinction article with the content of the omnicide article; however, there are other possible ways to merge the articles as well. 38.100.34.2 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My hesitance about a merge between the two is that "omnicide", unlike "human extinction", is a rather specialised term. Although the two are essentially synonymous, omnicide should not be presented as a (or the) commonly-accepted term. -- Black Falcon 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, with kudos to Christopher Powell for his work on the article. My understanding is that the term is distinct from the broader "human extinction". It is also notable (per the multiple sources), so I think a separate article is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human extinction; move any additional content there. I don't think the terms are sufficiently independent to require separate articles. Mike Christie (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I understand it, omnicide is the deliberate killing of the human race by humans, while human extinction is any scenario that leads to the wiping out of the species. So, omnicide should certainly be mentioned/discussed in the human extinction article, but they are different concepts. Merge and redirect is not a bad solution. However, human extinction is getting to be a pretty long article and the normal practice is to break out individual notable elements if an article starts to get too long. Based on the references provided, it seems (at least to me) that omnicide is a sufficiently notable concept to justify a separate article with room for expansion.--Kubigula (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, these are separate concepts, in the way that 'human fatality' and 'homicide' are separate concepts. Christopher Powell 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable junior athlete. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bellamy[edit]

Junior tennis player not yet notable although may be in the future Mattinbgn/^talk 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a professional sportsman, he meets WP:BIO, surely? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he's competed at the highest level, which I don't think the "La Vie Sport Junior Cup" is. FiggyBee 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep he is ranked 74 in the itf if thats not Notable enough i do not what is also there lot less notable articles on here. Oo7565 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, yet. MECU≈talk 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of him in the ATP rankings top 1500, or the ITF Junior rankings top 250. - fchd 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clear up the discrepancy, the ranking info appears to be from 2006, when he did get as high as 72 on the ITF. Finished the season at 119. As fchd points out, he doesn't seem to be present in current ITF rankings. Mwelch 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE with Alkaline Trio. Herostratus 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hannoura[edit]

non notable artist. Being in Alkaline trio is notable. Making their album sleeve art, is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with Alkaline Trio. The nom says "being in Alkaline trio is notable". Well, she is not a member but she is very closely tied to it. Apparently, she has played along with them with a spoken vocals role [44] as well as the group's art design which I think matters a great deal for the band's image. Minor it is, but still worthy of coverage somewhere on Wikipedia, even if not an independent article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alkaline Trio. Saranary 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without merging to Alkaline Trio because (a) it's a plausible search term, and (b) redirects are cheap. I don't think a merge is necessary as Ms. Hannoura is already mentioned at Alkaline Trio#Trivia. What is mentioned in that section is more relevant to the band than what exists in this biography. If the fair use rationale for the image–Image:Heatherhannouraandart.jpg–can apply in the Alkaline Trio article (doubtful, in my opinion), then I think only that should be merged. Otherwise, the image should be tagged with {{orfud}}. -- Black Falcon 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girlsplayboys[edit]

non notable band. Has not yet released debut album ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the page history it seems that the band's frontman created the page which breaches {{Wikipedia:Conflict of interest}} Suriel1981 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously fails WP:BAND and probably WP:COI too. --Haemo 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In this AfD, the delete opinions are backed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines far more strongly compared to those who are attempting to retain the article. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard bailey[edit]

Seems to be an autobiography (uses "my" several times as an adjective). The main problem is the lack of sources, none are mentioned in the article, and I can't find any searching around. The article appears to fail WP:BIO. Silverhand^Talk 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "my" was a typo. I was transcribing from an interview with him. The facts are direct from Richard Bailey himself and his rep

Comment Was this an interview you performed yourself and own the copyright to? --Silverhand^Talk 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I interviewed his through his Australian Rep (linked on the page). That was why I wrote "my" a few times.Wjwallis 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Weak delete, although I'm convinceable. Heavy googling (including Google News Archive) does confirm that he's a photographer for (mostly Australian) Vogue and there are quite a few web galleries of his work and plenty of photo credits, but very little information actually about him, even though several Australian dailies are on GNA. At this point I just don't see enough sources for anything more than a basic stub. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete sourcing problems are usually indicative of WP:N problems (especially for someone who works within the media world). /Blaxthos 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Peta 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote about him. There is very little information available on Richard Bailey. However, I just found some information from his NYC rep: http://www.judycasey.com/RB/artist_detail.html This has a bio on him. Despite the lack of "google" information on him he is a VERY famous photographer. Any viewing of his work will prove this Wjwallis 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto (jason)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR Ga rr ie 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this? part of the beauty of Wikipedia is you CAN find information on subjects that don't pop up as soon as you enter their name in Google! If you look at Richard Bailey's work and still believe he is not notable or worthy of being in Wikipedia fine. But as a photographer with 30 years worth of contributions to Australian Vogue he IS important. Please feel free to clean up my entry or make it a stub if I am referencing things incorrectly...Wjwallis 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources from third parties can be found. If so, rename and keep. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with this article isn't so much that he might not be notable in the grand scheme of things, its that we have absolutely no way to verify his notability. I looked to verify a few of the facts, and the only thing I could reliably establish was that he indeed did shoot for for Australian Vogue, though for how long, and how successfully, I don't know. Wjwallis - I'm sure you are a upstanding and ethical interviewer, but unfortunately, we simply cannot take your word that the information in this article is accurate. We must use reliable third party sources to check the facts - and if the reliable sources don't exist, the article must be deleted. I searched around a bit, and couldn't find anything, but you can change my mind if reliable sources appear before the five days are up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (Edited to correct spelling - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK I am looking! I'll see what I can find!Wjwallis 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Comment - CosmicPenguin nailed it on the head and said it better than I could. To take it one step further, lets use the comparison you made previously, David Bailey. Looking at his article, I can tell you something about his life, he is a member of the Order of the British Empire as well as his career from 1959 to present day. I can also tell you he's written or collaborated on three books and been interviewed in a fourth. He has pointers at the Internet Movie Database and has at least three published interviews. Comparatively speaking, Richard bailey is a man of mystery. There appears to be your interview, some reference to his work in Austrailian Vogue and online galleries of his art. Honestly, I think we'd all like to see an extremely well-written article for Mr. Bailey with a plethora of details on his life and career. The problem is, there isn't enough there even for a properly sourced stub. You mention other articles that are of equal stature. I won't deny that. As time moves on, all of the 1.5+ Million articles will get touched in some way. Some will go away, others will be improved. Still more will be created. Right now, it's about Richard bailey. A suggestion I might make in your sourcing is to read the most excellent article by Uncle G called On Notability. Be sure to read the entire article and don't skim it. Take it in it's entirety and read the links as well. Good luck and don't give up. Sincerely and respectfully, --Silverhand^Talk 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll check it out. I admit my enthusiasm for the subject outpaces my wikipedia skills!Wjwallis 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto I have added a reference that cites all of my facts: Capture magazine interview Feb 2007. I can upload pdfs of it if anyone wishes? Wjwallis 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Delete, "Some of my Richard Bailey's advertising clients include". Teehee. Notability not convincing. Lankiveil 12:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Notablility?!! That's rich. Wikipedia has all sorts of trivial people with dubious notability (ie American Idol contestants etc.) who have done nothing. If you are a photographer and shoot for huge clients and shoot for Vogue for 30 years I think that makes you notable!

BTW I am not Richard Bailey! I wished I was but I am sure he has much better and more lucrative things to do with his time than this.Wjwallis 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

I have added some more facts and references Wjwallis 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wjwallis[reply]

Move to Richard Bailey. Passes WP:ATT, although the sources need some specificity cleanup, and more sources wouldn't hurt. (Wjwallis, was your interview with the subject published anywhere? Can you find some other published interviews that back up the assertions in the article? Please add links to specific articles, not just the main page of the source, or cite edition and page number, etc. See WP:CITE for instructions on how to properly cite sources.) ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clean up with references whoever did itWjwallis 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Relisting this article, as most of the concerns regarded sourcing and several sources have been added, to gain consensus on whether the sourcing is sufficient given new information. I have no opinion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of mySwatjesters clients are..........yeah, delete, per many above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about? He is notable and the sourcing is sufficient. The "my" joke is wearing a bit thin and lame nowWjwallis 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

I am still not convinced. Adding a bunch of wiki links to notable people and things he has photographed does not help to assert his own notability, and the POV of the article has taken a turn for the worse (übercool agency??). For obviously reasons, his publicist is not a reliable source, neither are blogs. The picture gallery is pretty, and he takes nice pictures, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a criteria for inclusion. At least the B&W Magazine seems to confirm that he is a "top photographer", but WP:BIO demands multiple sources. If the Capture Magazine article listed in paragraph 2 is available - then that might push it over, though somebody would have to go through this article with a hatchet - get rid of the model names, the agency names, and the publicist links. Vote remains delete. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: if you shoot for Vogue (the top fashion magazine in the world) for 30 years that would make you notable!!!! Most of the top photographers of all time used Vogue as their showcase: Richard Avedon, Herb Ritts, Steven Meisel, Ellen Von Unwerth, Anne Lebovitz, Bruce Weber... etc etc.

If you're on some lame reality show apparently you are notable so why not a professional photographer who works for Vogue?

If you judge his pictures are "pretty" and "nice" that is subjective and irrelevant. The fact is he is one of the top photographers in the world and his agency (top photographers have representatives) is relevant because that is where his work is displayed!!!

This issue here is the common misconception that notability and importance are related on Wikipedia. When editor say non notable they mean that there are not sufficient sources from which to write an article. Since many reality TV stars are interviewed in magazines it is often possible to write a good biographical article about them. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Sun[edit]

this article does not fulfill the requirements according to WP:Band#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. this article does not assert the importance of the band. this article is most likely the work of a member of the band. the_undertow ^talk 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Suriel1981 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Sourcing is not an indication of notability, on which this nomination is based. His appearance on Letterman is not an indication of the fact that he is notable, not for an encyclopedic article. What about the the Guinness World Records show, they showcase a huge number of record attempts on TV; should all the people who attempt a Guinness record be notable? The basic fact is that his "fame" is based on a trivial event, and is therefore not encyclopedic. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McAllister[edit]

Ludicrously trivial bid for fame: the former "Guinness World Record holder for the most t-shirts worn at one time by a single human being". No really. See also this AFD, where an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is being made based on the existence of THIS article. Calton | Talk 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he did it again live on letterman, and it IS sourced. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and about a zillion other reasons of triviality. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as the Aaron John Waltke AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The viral YouTube video of his record breaking has been viewed nearly 3,000,000 separate times (see internet phenomenon). Appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman.--GoodAaron 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for holding a guiness world record, and sources provided. -- Whpq 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holding a random Guiness world record like this doesn't qualify, IMO, as notability. This guy's 15 minutes of fame are over, and he's had no lasting impact on anything. I see no reason to keep this, surely a permastub. Mango juice^talk 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability doesn't require one to do something of lasting impact. It only requires that the person be of note. As goofy as the record may be, it is has brought him enough attention to warrant appearances on television shows. -- Whpq 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally trivial, totally worthless, and I hope the current standards at WP cannot reasonably be interpreted to make this NotableDGG 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see Whpq's reasons.--PurgatoryMan 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. May pass WP:BIO, but does not pass WP:RECENT ("ten-year test" of notability in particular). GregorB 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RECENT is an essay, and not a policy or guideline -- Whpq 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aaron John Waltke. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a comprehensive resource about anything a person might want to research or just look up for the fun of it. Matt McAlister broke a world record, and that is enough of an accomplishment to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Think Fast 03:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Note: Editor is original creator of the article[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Leon_And_Rustin_Show[edit]

Non-notable, single season regional show which has no authorative sources and lots of crystal ball style 'might have beens'. All links on page go to either the author's home page or a single fan site and the DVDs mentioned (which might well suggest notability) appear home made and aren't actually available commercially, if at all StuartDouglas 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the talk page, the creator promised: "We can produce a list of notable sources by the end of today". That was five days ago and needless to say no such list has surfaced. Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided by the end of the AfD Iridescenti 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can order copies of the DVDs off that LRS website. That's how I even heard of the show and saw it in the first place. I have several respectable magazine articles where the show is featured or mentioned (2 of those in national publications), so apparently some of us consider it notable. Do I have to come to your houses and show you the TV show and magazines or what? (ha ha, just kidding!) Seriously though, I don't understand why this page is being picked on. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't notable or whatever. One last thing (for Stuart) - why did you say the links go to the author's homepage? I don't have a homepage listed on there. The links go to the websites of people featured on the show. You guys are getting carried away with your posts... you're doing quite a bit of that "crystal ball" gazing yourself! All the same, it's not the end of the world to me. Do what you gotta do, but I would appreciate it if you guys took a deep breath before rushing to judgment.--Brasky 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's rushing anything or picking on anyone but I can't help but think you're not help ing your case by saying "that LRS website" as though it were not connected to you when the image (10thLRS.jpg) which is prominently displayed on the Wiki LRS page and which you uploaded is also the dvd cover on the LRS website ([45]) - and on the licensing tag for the wiki image you say "I made it myself. I willingly release it into the public domain". I don't know if this counts as COI, but pretending to be impartial when you're not isn't brilliant behaviour. There's still not a single notable source on the page either. StuartDouglas 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed a copy of the article I wrote for Wikipedia to the webmaster of that site and I previously sent them a picture I photoshopped from various clips of the show for fun. That hardly means I own the site or that I'm any more connected to it than you are. THEY chose to put it on there, not me. You're turning this into a personal thing, Stuart, maybe because you feel I'm challenging your experience or authority? You are making claims and assumptions about me, the show, and the websites without knowing ANYTHING about me, the show, or the websites. My intention is not to continually argue with you about this stuff. I agree with you that I am not an "impartial" person - I love the show and I think it is hilarious. But I did write an impartial ARTICLE about the show for Wikipedia (on behalf of myself and other fans around the country) and I think you should respect it. That all being said, I disagree strongly with you that there are no notable sources on the page. Apparently, someone at Wiki agrees with me as well because the page has never been deleted. I appreciate your input, and I respect you as a person - but I really wish you would give up your crusade against me and my article.--Brasky 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector theory of law[edit]

The article makes it clear that this is original research. andy 09:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's probably not OR, since it seems to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or by some university press publishing house, because the link in the reference section goes to a Brazilian university page. I have asked the author on the talk page of the article to clarify whether this theory was published in a peer-reviewed journal or not.--DorisHノート 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedant 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Yes, this monograph was published officially in the mentioned University, as an end course requirement. It's there, printed and was analised by the profssors of the university and accepted as valid and unique writing. Since the book, based in the monograph, is being edited by the author and will be reliesed this year, I don't see any harm in deleting this for a while, althoug it may hinder some discussion about considering the law forces as vectors coming from a social covenant and based on a main principle of reciprocity. If passed the test of deletion, I will increment the article.[reply]

Delete A theory supported only by one university thesis is not notable. There is the need for a least one other source than the university that anyone besides the examining committee and the author thinks it's notable. No institution can validly peer-review its own publications. peer review, just like our own standards, requires independent sources. DGG 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Picaroon 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles P. Fletcher[edit]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a hoax. Google returns nothing. It should also be said that this is the user's only contribution. Lampman 10:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it looks very strongly like a hoax. Robinson weijman 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source given can not be found on Amazon or AbeBooks, now I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. Lampman 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smells strongly of hoax. Note that for something so allegedly famous, "NOTHING but glorified ants..." does not show up on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Conner[edit]

along with Mark Connor. Non notable self published minister, with zero reliable sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kevin Conner, but Mark Connor doesn't seem to be related and is certainly notable as the head baseball coach of a Division I university (Tennessee). I don't think these two should have been bundled on the same AFD. Keep Mark Connor. --MECU≈talk 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's a typo for Mark Conner.... ChrisTheDude 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that many of Kevin's books are now self published by no means makes them unnotable. They are used as bible college textbooks and regularly cited by other works. For example, search some of his books on Amazon.com and note citations: TCNT, IST, TD, TM, FCD, CNT, TS, FI and BA. He is the pre-eminent scholar worldwide on theology of the tabernacle. My guess is that you could call any Pentecostal bible school in the world, ask to speak to the Dean of Theology and ask if they've heard of Kevin Conner -- and they would. Natebailey 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Harvard Divinity School's library catalogue lists two of his works, Princeton Theological Seminary lists three. Natebailey 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep sufficient books.DGG 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The published works might possibly fulfill our standards, for adoption as a text by multiple colleges has consistently been considered to make for notability. However, this hasnt been shown. The listings of the books on Amazon is not enough. If the adoption can be shown by the end of the AfD, I'll change my opinion. DGG 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. New Covenant International requires "The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, by Kevin J. Conner" for BTH301 Biblical Theology VI; 2. Maranatha Online College requires "Conner, Kevin J. The Book of Acts: Early Church History and the Ministry of the Holy Spirit. City Bible Publishing. Portland, OR, 1992 ISBN: 1-886849-02-1" for The Book of Acts; 3. International Bible College requires "Conner, Kevin J. The Church in the New Testament." for PM(G/N/E)262: Practical Church Ministry; 4 BEULAH HEIGHTS BIBLE COLLEGE suggests "“The Tabernacle of Moses" as supplemental reading for BI 240 BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY Natebailey 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's not the existence on Amazon I am highlighting, it is the citations (as the links show). He's been cited by over 40 other authors, including Jack Hayford and Dutch Sheets. Natebailey 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also quotes such as 'These textbooks have gone into over 80 countries and have become great resources for Ministers, teachers, preachers and Bible college students' MFI and 'A basic ecclesiology by one of the respected pioneers of the New Apostolic Reformation' GHM. Natebailey

Would you mind adding these quotes/sources to the article? I notice you are the article's creator, so you probably know more about the subject and can integrate the sources well. Thanks, Black Falcon 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Kevin Conner is notable as demonstrated by the information prsented by Natebailey above. Mark Connor seems to be an unrelated person to whom the deletion rationale does not apply. -- Black Falcon 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by ChrisGriswold. MER-C 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Sewage Company[edit]

No evidence of notability. Robinson weijman 10:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Delete opinions are very much in a minority. There does seem to be agreement that the content would be better presented in merged articles, but not as to the targerts of any such merges. I recommend further discussion on the relevant talkpages about possible merges. WjBscribe 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-05A Zaku 1 Early Type[edit]

The former are unsourced, unattributable and non-notable fancruft. As it stands, they are merely plot summaries with zero real world context. MER-C 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Also, do not that we already have a much more refeined article on MS-05 Zaku I

Delete Pure fancruft, nearly zero reference to real world context including the Gundam media that these fictional concepts come from. This might be appropriate for a Gundam wiki but not here. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two Zaku articles into a holistic "Zaku" article or a "List of Zaku mobile suits". Weak keep Guncannon and Guntank, as they were two of the three original mobile suit concepts by Yoshiyuki Tomino (the third being the Gundam), the mastermind of the Gundam multimedia franchise. Uncertain on other two. -- saberwyn 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two parts:
- Merge or REDIRECT The Zakus into MS-05 Zaku I. GM-III merge to GM or even RX-78 Gundam.
- Keep Guncannon and Guntank are the two of the most notable mecha in the Gundam franchaise, which by itself is notable; if not here, then definitely in Japan.
- Personal Neutral On Gustav Karl. Let just give you a hint: even in Gundam universe, Kustav Karl is unheard of.

In all these case, please refer to WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTCARE. Do remember that Gundam is the most famous franchise in Japan, even more than Star trek and Star Wars. Furthermore, it's best to not do a WP:ALLORNOTHING here.~~64.180.83.71 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Sorry, that's my IP addr. George Leung 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever these Gundam articles come up people always claim that they are notable because Gundam itself is notable. The problem is that these articles on individual mecha contain little real world context ie how these fictional concepts fit into the real world. Fictional characters and machinery are not really separate concepts from the media that creates them unless they have been discussed separately in some "out of universe" media. In response to the IDONTKNOWIT arguement, while I don't know that much about Gundam I did nominate and merge most of the characters from my favorite movies the Aliens series. While I love these characters and know alot about them, all the info in the articles comes from in universe sources and it was impossible to provide real world context. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of universe: Super Robot Wars George Leung 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge the Zakus into the Zaku article, the same with the GM III into the GM article, Delete the Gustav Karl, and Keep the Guntank and Guncannon as those are units used by main characters in Gundam 0079 and thus noteable. Jtrainor 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, MER-C, I would love to know why you never tag things for cleanup and instead always leap for the PROD or AFD solution. Jtrainor 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link to this entry are red in Gustav Karl's, GM III's, Guncannon's and Guntank's article. I corrected them all, but at least play it fair next time, please? Now, back to topic...

Delete both Zakus 1, already covered in MS-05 Zaku I (and it's very rare for people to use Zaku 1 to call MS-05.
Merge GM III into RGM-79 GM.
Keep Guncannon, has major role in story and cause inspiration on later mech show (Dragonar 2 from Metal Armor Dragonar, Dankov from Blue Comet SPT Layzner and Schwaltz from Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation for example).
Weak keep Guntank, has major role in story but has no major inspiration that I can remember.
Weak merge Gustav Karl into RGM-89 Jegan, otherwise Delete. L-Zwei 10:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AFD seems rather convoluted, with various suggestions to keep one, delete another, merge some, and do unspecified things to the rest. As the general consensus seems to be somewhere between merging and keeping, I would suggest that discussion about a merge to a main article or a "List of characters" article be taken to the respective talk pages. -- Black Falcon 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, my comment above constitutes a recommendation to keep all pending discussion on the talk pages and merges as appropriate. -- Black Falcon 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is generally what happens when people start hit-and-run AFDs instead of contacting the appropriate editors about article content. Jtrainor 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Yoshiyuki Tomino and report this result on the Talk pages of all the relevant articles. It will then be up to the discretion of the editors at the different Talk pages as to where the material should be merged to. The separate articles are too weak to stand as they are, they are an embarrassment. If the editors can come up with a smaller set of articles that are reliably sourced, and tied back to the original shows, they are quite unlikely to be challenged in any further AfDs. Note that a redirect will not wind up deleting any content; the content will all survive in the histories of the various pages, under the redirects. EdJohnston 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ehh...Zaku I Early Type appear in Zeonic Front game. it isn't Tomino's work. Also, why reader who want to read about mech a would want to read about show's author? L-Zwei 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge would be acceptable too). Seems to need a ton of cites but I think they can be salvaged. MrMacMan 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge everything here into one article? I would think that a separate topic for a specific thing within a fictional world is acceptable if there's a lot of important content to the article. E.g. in the recent lightsaber combat AfD the article was very detailed and well-researched, and would have taken up too much space within Star Wars -- whereas these articles are rather tiny and don't seem to have any value outside of their fictional universe. Maybe if the info gets merged into one single article, someone will see it and actually fix the content up a bit. Holy crap, do you see how many articles there are within this category? MS-05A is a tiny article that doesn't seem to have much value, but RX-75 and RX-77 are huge articles, and check out the large chart at the bottom of those 2 pages before casting a vote! At this point, I have to think the only options are keep all, move to their own wiki, or delete 1000 pages of Gundam content and watch a firestorm ensue. I think only a fan would be able to make an informed vote about this content, and only a suicidal person would want to discuss this issue from the standpoint of cruft. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Most of the STRONG KEEP!!! type comments were from single purpose accounts, and gave invalid reasons for keeping. The delete comments were mostly from more experienced users, however did not really cite much of an argument, so it's no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric the Midget[edit]

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

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

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

Somewhat of another Brian Peppers-like article. Violates WP:BLP quite severely and permanently. Article is unreferenced, the only source(s) cited are actually summaries of the radio show he "appears on". Also, there is the real possibility of failing WP:BIO. Let's not have Jimbo delete this one. MER-C 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any of it is verifiable using reliable sources, merge into The Wack Pack article. Otherwise, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely, lets get this deleted ASAP Oskar 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no factual errors in the article, though the language could be cleaned up, especially the use of n****r term third paragraph in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.215 (talk) — 195.229.236.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE. No factual errors, and the article utilizes primary source show summaries. There are no better citations that could possibly exist. This subject is topical and relevant and should remain as a stand alone entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.189.25 (talk) — 12.148.189.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- If "There are no better citations that could possibly exist", this will probably be deleted until citations are found (if ever). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepI think it fits:

A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following.

His fansites, myspace page, and SFN Forum back this one up. Additionally fans have made cartoons staring him, and songs using his dialouge. I think these qualify as a cult following. -Hoponpop69 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For notability, subject has a large fan base, fansites, and multiple works created around subject. As for WP:BLP, and reliable sources, suggest stubbing article back to introduction, and possibly keeping own show section, since neither of those sections appear to be contentious. Then protect page until exhaustive search can be performed to cite any contentious material including wackipedia(sic) and balloons sections and attempt to reach consensus if possible. If that fails then merge what is left back into The Wack Pack. Merging into wack pack now may cause problems since wack pack article currently poorly sourced as well.(Optigan13 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I think Optigan13 said it best. SLATE 06:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed — 80.184.25.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete not notable. ZBrannigan 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If individual Pokemon are notable enough to have their own articles, a regular guest caller (live, human, non-fictional) on one of the best known radio shows in the U.S. certainly is. Riddley 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP The assertion that this article is poorly sourced is absurd. Look at the bottom of the article. It may need some cleaning up, but that is not a reason to delete it.
As far as notability is concerned, SomethingAwful.com considers him to be the third most famous little person] in the world. He actually came out ahead of Verne Troyer. Rglovejoy 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Howard Stern is and has been listened to by millions and is internationally popular. Eric is a frequent, often daily, or weekly, segment of the show and no mere caller. He is not just a caller he is a notable caller on a notable program. Allegations of PoV are worthless here. The article only concerns Eric qua the Howard Stern Show and in so far as he is represented in that capacity this is as neutral as possible. Indeed, since he is only notable qua the Howard Stern Show neutrality need only concern itself with this aspect of him; it is not unneutral to fail to assess Eric from the point of view of his family, friends, or non-stern related figures because the point of view of these figures is not important in relation to the notable aspect of his existence.--Matt 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP In addition the Howard Stern stuff, his appearance on American Dreams warranted him a page on IMDB. Surely that's enough to keep an article on him. 76.208.19.190 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) — 76.208.19.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Eric has become a larger part of the Howard Stern Show over the past few years, and figures prominently into many daily discussions & bits. Article should be cleaned up and better referenced, but definetly kept.--BrunoRT 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known to million of radio listeners of Howard Stern. Definitely deserving of a seperate page 68.238.221.221 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — 68.238.221.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP This individual has become a mini-celebrity and has also been referenced on other non-Howard Stern related websites. Ecnirpnaf99 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to wack pack article and deleted all unsourced info. This article has too much fancruft in it, Eric does not pass the 10/100 test. Most keep arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT or WP:BIGNUMBER. —Ocatecir ^Talk 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP Eric is an important member of the show and one of the top whack packers. He was voted the number three midget of all time an appears on the Stern show almost daily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tofilmfan (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

STRONG KEEP~ He is a very important part of Stern Show history!!

Delete Unreferenced nonsence like this has no place on wikipedia. Greatestrowerever 12:57, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

STRONGLY KEEP- he already outlived what his doctors said he would and is growing in popularity,if you do not keep this you are just a bunch of little people haters (or just hate actors)

STRONGLY KEEP Eric has been a near-daily-appearing show character since 2002. From 2002 through 2005 the Howard Stern show, Monday through Friday, had over 10 million listeners per day. With the Sirius/XM merger the show could in the very near future attain those type of numbers once again. The Howard Stern Show is as mainstream a piece of American pop culture as one can get speaking in the most strict, capitalist terms. I've seen wiki of dozens of programs with literally a thousanth of the audience of the Stern show per week who have seperate profiles for characters or personalties of parallel profile to what Eric has had with Howard. It takes quite a lot of moxie to judge the impact of a character or what he has meant to a show when one hasn't been a listener/viewer to it, as many of those pro-delete zealots show a clear indication of. Or even the absurd notion that Howard Stern fans can't be the best arbiters, or arbiters at all, for keeping acuracy on Howard Stern centric profiles. Do you see we Stern fans trying to create seperate profiles for every Wack Packer? It would be helpful if the people in these arguments stated their basic opinion on the show they're making judgements about BTW, I have no problem removing the mystery and acknowledging biases. Also excuse me if I assume an Englishman,Greatestrowerever, wouldn't be the best barometer for the American radio atmosphere and who it registers with in the American culture. Stephen's black friend 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a crucial part of The Howard Stern Show. He's done to much for one person to deleate one's page. He makes people smile and laugh each day.

STRONGLY KEEP!!! For the simple reason that he should not be censored from Wiki. If someone wants to learn about Eric, they should be able to find valid information about him.

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is one of the most beloved members of the WackPack. His calls to the show are the stuff of legend and he has truly separated himself from average WackPackers. He is and always will be a lexicon of The Howard Stern Show and rightly deserves special recognition for his contributions and works. --Sir Brentallica-- Knights of the SFN

STRONGLY KEEP. Eric the Midget is a very big part of the Howard Stern Radio Show. If this post were to be deleted, you would also have to delete other members of his show. This Wiki should not be censored, or otherwise it loses validity and becomes biased.

strongly keep ETM is arguably the most popular and influential little person in popular culture today. His influence is starting to extend beyond the realm of the Stern show and into the area of music, wrestling and organized crime. Sti571 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)sti571[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a member of the Howard Stern Wack pack. He contributes to the show frequently. He should have a page as other members of the Wack Pack have theirs. 67.149.130.107hp242

Delete. For the love of God, delete it. Why we need to have articles on people who only appear on nationally aired talk shows is a major mystery to me. It's different for someone like Stuttering John, who has notability outside of the show. But it's just ridiculous in this case. He isn't notable just for being on the show alot. It doesn't work that way. And to whomever closes this, good luck counting the votes. I wish non-Wikipedia users wouldn't flood AfDs like this. It's counter productive. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Eric is a huge part of one of the most popular and influential radio shows in history.Xpendersx 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable enough for an article. I know of him, and I never even listen to Howard Stern. --musicpvm 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I came here specifically for knowledge about eric the midget. It's not like the internet is running out of disk space.
Keep, I have an issue with some of the comments made in this discussion, as I think everyone deserves a BIO page, regardless of what their claim to fame is, or even if they have none. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia for everything that has ever been, and everyone has had some kind of impact on society and the way of the world. Eric is no exception to this. Eric is a real person, who has a life and has had an impact on society, just like everyone else who has a BIO. Having said that, I do admit that the article reads less like a BIO and more like an article about "Eric's antics on the Howard Stern show". Maybe a new article should be created for *that* topic, and those portions of the BIO can be moved out of the BIO page and onto that topic page. Then, people can argue about whether *that* page should be deleted. But the BIO page itself should remain, if for no other reason, than out of respect for Eric. Mikeguz 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawpedo[edit]

Combination of a dictionary definition and a how-to guide, boh failing WP:NOT. No good sources per WP:ATT (both Urban dictionary and Everything.com are wikilike). It exists, but it has no encyclopedic value, no notability. Fails WP:ATT for lack of reliable secondary sources. Fram 12:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like something that was made up one day. MER-C 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems like something that probably is done somewhere and we just need to find some good sources for it. Its well written for the most part and, judging by the picture, does have some specilist following. Not much notability but definitely some. Prehaps a better name for the article rather than the colloquial dictionary definition. Think outside the box 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and thank the Wikigods that "seems like something that probably is done somewhere" is not a reason to keep an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATT. --Haemo 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dvora E. Weisberg[edit]

Delete Is she more notable than any regular professor, to wit, does she pass WP:BIO? ~~I'm not certain. Avi 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)~~ I do not think so. -- Avi 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think she passes, if just barely. Oskar 13:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Weak delete NYC JD makes a good point. Oskar 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every professor publishes. WP:PROFTEST refers. She is no different than any other prof in any other college. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep; Every professor publishes, but I do not know what the average amount may be in this subject. What she has published is 6 articles. Associate professors are usually borderline. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in the subject can help. DGG 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete doesn't pass WP:BIO requirements--Sefringle 06:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Pokémon Mystery Dungeon#Possible sequel. WjBscribe 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2[edit]

Per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ^Khukri 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokemon Mystery Dungeon#Sequel?, or delete. --h2g2bob 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect. Think outside the box 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd be surprised if this doesn't happen, but an article is inappropriate until there's an official announcement and some hard facts. Redirect for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until we get some pics and some info on the game, then make an article about it. You Are Ooglay 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until we get real confirmation, then recreate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge try to merge this in with the original one until more information is revealedBluebrody7 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge since there is no Pokèmon Mystery Dungeon 2 announced yet. TJ Spyke 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Redirect IF this game is announced, and when they are some details, then it can be created (under the correct title, the person who started it didn't even bother to spell it right). TJ Spyke 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~According to my Japanese-speaking friend, the scan doesn't mention anything even remotely related to Pokémon (but is rather all about Ace Combat). So Delete~~. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is currently nothing truly worth mentioning of the game that isn't just speculation. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong merge. According to Duckroll (who does the "Weekly Famitsu" threads on NeoGAF and is trustworthy), the game will be as such:
New Pokemon Mysterious Dungeon
- Second Chunsoft x Pokemon project
- Slightly different format
- There's probably be 2 versions
- Story will be enhanced
- Will support Wifi
I think that's decent enough information (for a merge). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of Duckroll (which sounds like a pseudonym to me), Weekly Famitsu, or NeoGAF, and am not sure that many would approve of them being reliable source material. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have voted twice, so I have scratched your second one. just a comment, will be from a friend of a friend type source is not the most verifiable is it? If it's a sure fire thing then your article can be written when it is launched, as at the moment it's mostly speculation. Hence my not crystal ball reasoning. ^Khukri 08:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't supposed to be a vote—it's supposed to be a discussion trying to reach a consensus—so I removed the strikethrough—see WP:PNSD about consensus. --Brandon Dilbeck 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - [46] IGN now confirms it; Also, Weekly Famitsu is a magazine in Japan who often gets exclusive scoops. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changing my opinion to merge, because it has no title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge yay, one english source and they can't even refer to the game series correctly (calling it "Mysterious Dungeon") there's hardly enough info to make a an article out of it. After more info has been released and it could pass WP:SS then it can be recreated/split -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokémon Mystery Dungeon#Possible sequel, which covers the single English-language source on this subject appropriately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If the game becomes notable after it is released, then article can always be re-generated. 38.100.34.2 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Filmaker 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible conspiracy theory[edit]

Nomination: This is a reluctant nomination. The article has potential but is hampered by serious problems with WP:ATT. It is very long article with almost no citations (there is exactly one as of the time of this nom.) I have no doubt that these theories exist, but without citations to show who says what, the entire article comes across as being OR. I have made repeated requests for citations on the talk page, and about a month ago I tagged both the article and specific sentences, with no response. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if work is done, but as it stands now the article must be nominated at least. Blueboar 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the problems mentioned are real, but not reasons to delete. --Martin Wisse 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting article, and I don't usually go for conspiracy theory stuff... perhaps a better title for this article might be "alternate theories" or something. At any rate, while referencing is bad currently, I have added 1 personally, and most of the items on the list are hardly out of the blue, they mention books and scholars who support the ideas in question, but just lack the formality of inline citations just yet. Thus I think it's clear this article just needs improvement, not deletion. --W.marsh 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These theories definitely exist, but to keep an article titled "Bible Conspiracy Theories" requires that collectively they be a topic of debate. There's no citation to underly that claim, which in any case is not really asserted in the article. As it stands, the article is OR - interesting but disqualified for Wikipedia. (I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't expect it.)-- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but the nominator has valid concerns that apparently have failed to be addressed for some time. I would recommend that Blueboar or another editor with similar concerns add [citation needed] tags where appropriate, and maybe their presence there will get under the skin of someone who can provide sources. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that the whole point of having the {{references}} tag was to avoid having every other sentence flagged with {{fact}} tags. My other option would be to invoke WP:RS and simply delete everything that is unsourced - which would leave, at most, two disconnected paragraphs. By the way... I thank those who are actually adding sources to the article instead of simply saying "keep it" but not helping to aleviate the problems. Blueboar 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I understand, but there is a difference between a general, "This article has no citations" notice, and specifying this needs a source, this needs a source, this needs a source (and I don't know of any policy stating they can't both be used where necessary). The effect may be only psychological, but it can be considerable, especially since your concerns haven't been addressed previously. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK... if only to demonstrate exactly how bad this article is. I still feel that if there isn't significant work done on this front, the article should be deleted. Blueboar 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles does not have enough sources, but that is no reason to delete it. The theories do exist and citations for many statements can be found. Some of the things mentioned, such as the apocryphas are common knowledge and there is no consensus yet that common knowledge statements need to have a source. AfD is not the place to deal with this kind of problem. --DorisHノート 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it also needs mention of Scientology's claim that the bible's whole stuff was the result of brainwashing that Xenu did 75 million years ago. SakotGrimshine 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is really a claim by Scientologists, then add it with citation. Blueboar 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is what they claim.. It says so in one of the scientology articles. SakotGrimshine 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, it is what ex-Scientologists say the Scientologists claim. Xenu is considered secret by Scientologists and the whole "space opera" stuff is only made available to OT III members after they sign all sorts of waivers. --Richard 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is informative and that alone suffices. There are enumerable Wikilinks and some external links to other sources for those who want to follow up. Anyone who sees any potential stretch can add a "citation needed" tag. Use those, not deletion, for informative, well written articles. --MBHiii 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable subject, and the article is useful. But he individual entries have to be sourced directly or indirectly, and not all of them are. The ones not sourced are , in my personal opinion, the more unusual ones that I'd want to know more about. I am also unsure about the article title, but cannot immediately think of a better.DGG 01:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The problem with citations is a red herring. Ignore it. The real problem is that this article is a mish-mash of articles that are only tangentially related through their alternative views of what constitutes the "true Bible". Each individual topic may be encyclopedic but there is no Bible conspiracy theory, at least not one that unifies the various theories. Most of these theories are not "conspiracy theories" per se. They are just theories about what is or is not the "true Bible". At the very minimum, this article needs a new title that is more descriptive of its content. Better yet, merge this into an existing Bible-related article. --Richard 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 38.100.34.2 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Desktop[edit]

Reason Warteck 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD process needs to be finished + reason should be added. Pavel Vozenilek 15:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link on the article itself - I am guessing they thought it was non-notable. They seem to be rather new. GreenReaper 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. It looks as if Stardock, rather non-notable company, had based their marketing activities on Wikipedia. I support deleting all articles about their product articles and the article about the company as well. Pavel Vozenilek 15:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote that article and most of the others, on my own time. I did become an employee of Stardock - after writing most of them - but it was not as a result of writing those articles, nor was I compensated for them.

To address the general question of notability: Stardock is, as noted in their main article, a leader in the area of customizing desktop environments, and turn-based strategy gaming. Its latest game expansion, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, won Editors' Choice awards from well-known review sites such as GameSpy and IGN. Object Desktop, and in particular WindowBlinds, IconPackager, ObjectBar and DesktopX are all well known in the customization industry - the package as a whole dates back to 1995, and OS/2, although it moved to Windows in 1998. The company also maintains a website, WinCustomize, which is popular enough to qualify for its own article under WP:WEB (though that article has problems which could do with resolving as well - I'm not a regular on the site, so I've mostly avoided it).

As to this particular product - I would have merged it into a bigger article like Object Desktop if it was part of such a package. It is only distributed standalone at this time, though. Perhaps a merge into Stardock, or WinCustomize? (it is branded as a "WinCustomize" product, and sold via the site) GreenReaper 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ojbect Desktop. Object Desktop's components have won various awards and are certainly notable, but this component doesn't stand on it's own. However, deleting all Stardock programs and the company itself out of hand is both beyond the scope of this AFD and also a little ridiculous, since Stardock is certainly notable, as is some of their software.Chunky Rice 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software. I didn't realize that this wasn't a part of Object Desktop. I say delete unless it can be merged into some other product line.Chunky Rice 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Avi 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Yehuda Krinsky[edit]

Delete I am not certain that this person is not inherently notable outside the original research that seems to be in this article. Avi 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been inmproved to the point that I am withdrawing the nomination. -- Avi 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:A, absolutely no second party sources Alf^Photoman 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in a dire state but so almost all the articles on Chabad-Lubavithch topics. This man is very very notable. And hopefully I will get round to sorting out the article tomorrow. This nomination is absurd as this google news achive shows. His role as the right hand man and spokesman of Schneerson for 40 years and his stewardship of the organisation for the past 13 years makes him notable, not only the 165 newspaper articles, dozens of scholarly articles and books he is cited in. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since nomination for AfD David has undertaken a massive improvement chore and there are indications that WP:A problems can not be solved Alf^Photoman 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Duos[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to assert [[WP:|notability]], fails the attribution policy and reasons cited by nom. NeoFreak 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the primary criterion of WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (No use even addressing WP:PORNBIO since it is apparently being eliminated-- 4 points of notability have been removed within about a month-- any point she may pass there today may be gone tomorrow). Multiple magazine layouts, multiple magazine covers, multiple video appearances. Clearly an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. To use "Notability" to delete articles on celebrities, rather than vanity pages, is an abuse of the term. Dekkappai 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Models are not independant of the magazines they appear in. The models work for the magazine. Epbr123 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This argument is absurd. Are actors independent of the films they appear in? They are studio employees. Are you planning a deletion campaign on film next? Why do you refuse to deal constructively with whatever it is that is bothering you? Why are you intentionally disrupting Wikipedia with WP:POINT AfDs? You have made over a dozen of these over the past few day, few of which are justifiable, and no doubt several of them will be deleted because editors do not have time improve each article or even to respond to each AfD before it closes. If you were really concerned about notability and sourcing, you would put a source-tag on the article, as I did with your still insufficiently sourced stub yesterday. Instead you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by wasting editor's time. You don't even put any thought into your responses at these AfDs, you just paste the same nonsense. Dekkappai 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you need to review the Notability guidline. There is nothing in this article that asserts she is any diffrent than the tens of thousands of other porographic performers. Even if it did claim so does this article meet the mandatory policy of attribution? The obvious answer is no. NeoFreak 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you need to look at the article again. Dekkappai 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think that mens-mags.com is a reliable source and that the "reliable source" is asserting notability by demonstrating that she has been in a porn mag "X" number of times...well then I don't know what else to say to you. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, the old "Any source on porn is unreliable if it and when mentions porn" argument... IMDB is perfectly fine for thousands of articles, but suddenly invalid if it covers a porn subject. mens-mags.com is not 'reliable' enough to prove a subject has appeared in men's mags. Scans of the model's picture on those men's mags is not 'reliable' evidence that she appeared in those men's mags, because they are men's mags... If that's the kind of reasoning you engage in, feel free to say nothing more to me. And I will return the favor. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This subject also has an article on Spanish Wikipedia. Deleting a U.S. subject from English Wikipedia while it exists in another language? What's the WP:POINT? Dekkappai 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the existance of one policy violation is justification from additional violations? I would hope the point is that we want to keep this encyclopedia inline with its policies. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. When an article on a minor U.S. celebrity is put up for deletion from the English Wikipedia, while it exists on non-English Wikipedias, the question of whether the English Wikpedia's policies are being abused to keep out certain subjects comes to mind. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this person is notable. --Nolanuss 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Notability" is abused when it is used to delete articles on minor celebrities. It should be used to keep out vanity pages. This subject is clearly a celebrity. Dekkappai 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly? Funny, the notability guidline for porn actors says otherwise. If you have a problem with the guildlines and policies of wikipedia then I suggest you take that issue up on their respective pages, not at an AfD discussion. NeoFreak 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with Wikipedia policies, I have a problem when they are abused to waste editor's time, and to delete articles on subjects that some editors dislike. WP:PORN has lost half its "notability" criteria within about a month, so I go by WP:BIO which this article clearly passes. The nominator has started stubs which are completely unsourced, yet frets about sourcing in over a dozen AfDs in the past few days. Something is obviously fishy here. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. WP:PORNBIO and WP:N are being abused beyond their creators' intentions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a problem with the guildlines and policies of wikipedia then I suggest you take that issue up on their respective pages, not at an AfD discussion. Epbr123 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While those policies could use some work, this isn't about them-- I'm citing an improper interpretation thereof. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How have I interpreted them improperly? Epbr123 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it rather odd that Epbr123 and NeoFreak have mis-spelled two words in very similar ways during this discussion?

Epbr123: If you have a problem with the guildlines; NeoFreak: "If you have a problem with the guildlines"
Epbr123: "Models are not independant"; NeoFreak: "So the existance"

Just asking. Dekkappai 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you tell it was a copy & paste?? Epbr123 00:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Screw WP:AGF, it's tin foil hat time! NeoFreak 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added five published interviews, an article, more magazine pictorials and covers. To clarify the IMDB reference: A listing at IMDB is not being used as proof of notability. Rather, like at hundreds of other film articles on Wikipedia, it is being used as a source. That source gives these published interviews, etc. Again, clearly notable. Dekkappai 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are primary sources and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. An article in a porn magazine is not independent source as the subject of the article is an employee of the magazine. Please read the notability guidelines. Epbr123 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the article is cleaned up. Acalamari 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in her category she is notable model.Kamui99 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has no reliable sources and there is no indication provided that she passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Vintan[edit]

Romanian university professor. No reliable third-party coverage. Good career (or so he claims) but not sufficiently notable. Pascal.Tesson 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of published papers claimed might be enough for notability.I'll check back on this one.DGG 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find myself a little uncomfortable at the textual similarities between Towards a high performance neural branch predictor (IJCNN'99, his most cited paper according to GS with 27 cites), Towards a Powerful Dynamic Branch Predictor (published in a Romanian journal), Dynamic Branch Prediction using Neural Networks (DSD'01), and Two-level branch prediction using neural networks (another journal). They are on very similar topics, have some textual similarity, and yet the DSD'01 paper doesn't mention the earlier papers' existence, with the later paper even going so far as to say "In complete contrast to earlier work, this paper explores the possibility of using neural networks to dynamically predict branch outcomes" (one of many phrases copied from the 2000 journal) even when the author's own earlier work is on exactly that subject. It is normal and expected in this area to publish journal and conference versions of the same work, but it's much less normal to publish two journal and two conference versions of such similar work; it is the similarities between the Romanian journal paper and the DSD'01 paper that are of most concern to me. Which may all be a little off-topic for this AfD, but to bring it back to a discussion of his notability: In his hits on Google scholar, three out of the four top hits, despite having very different titles and publication records, are really on very similar or the same material. Many of his other papers have very few hits. So it seems the publication record is not as strong as it appears on first glance. —David Eppstein 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this quite so negative--for most of the topics, he seems to have published a preliminary paper in a conference as well as a finished one in journal--which is not disreputable. But we'd normally count only the journal articles, and we'd expect him to make a mark in one particular area. So I went to Web of Science, which only lists 4 of his articles:

Vintan L, Gellert A, Florea A, et al., Understanding prediction limits through unbiased branches LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 4186: 480-487 2006 Times Cited: 0 (but this is too recent to expect cites, & it is a very highly regarded series)
Vintan LN, Florea A, Gellert A, Focalising dynamic value prediction to CPU's context IEE PROCEEDINGS-COMPUTERS AND DIGITAL TECHNIQUES 152 (4): 473-481 JUL 2005 Times Cited: 0 (Also too recent for cites--a major conference series)
Egan C, Steven G, Quick P, et al. Two-level branch prediction using neural networks ,JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 49 (12-15): 557-570 DEC 2003 , Times Cited: 2
Egan C, Steven G, Vintan L Cached two-level adaptive branch predictors with multiple stages LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 2299: 179-191 2002 , Times Cited: 0

WoS is known to under-represent Eastern European publications, but everything considered, an unambiguous

Delete, DGG 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that WoS underrepresents computer science in general, largely because of WoS' focus on journals while a lot of the CS literature is in conferences. And what I was complaining about isn't the preliminary-conference polished-journal thing; as I said, that's normal and expected. But it doesn't seem that we are in any disagreement about the AfD decision. —David Eppstein 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an obvious copyvio. No conclusions as to best title for any subsequent article written on this subject. WjBscribe 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan[edit]

Article lacks information on the notability. Article is an advertisement. Masterpedia 15:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. This is a major regional organization. Needs extensive wikifying and rewriting, but a viable article is possible. 23skidoo 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The text reads like a copyright violation, but I haven't been able to match it exactly. Given that this organization goes back to anti-TB days, I suspect it has an interesting history - one that this article ignores presently, but that could be written about. I'm not completely convinced that this needs to be written about separately from Canadian lung associations in general, but let's keep it for now. Brianyoumans 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Canadian Lung Association and rework as appropriate per WP:ORG. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move' per Dhartung. `GreenJoe 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Canadian Lung Association and rework, per User:Dhartung. This might involve drastic trimming, but the information will survive in the history and can be restored later if someone has time to do a real article on the Saskatchewan group. EdJohnston 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three of Cups[edit]

This is one of many articles on individual tarot cards in the "minor arcana" which many feel will never become anything more than a stub.Smiloid 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Merge All of each suit into a single article under the name of the suit (i.e. Cups (Tarot)) or delete all. Otto4711 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, and judging from your User talk page and some other comments on talk pages, I'd almost call this bad faith, using AfD to try and circumvent discussion. There's nothing wrong with stubs, so long as they're sourced, and they can absolutely be added to. Besides, most people are going to be looking for the "mystical" interpretation of these cards when they look them up. If there are other uses for these cards as you claim, then add them to the article, but just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you need to declare war against the tarot. We're looking for verifiability, not truth, and the tarot is verifiable. --UsaSatsui 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all With literally centuries worth of books written about the tarot, and more arriving all the time, it seems to me that an article should be possible for every card and its various meanings and symbolism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notable, sourcable, and moderately sourced for stubs. If not, merge to some sort of aggregation, but there's absolutely no reason to delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregate into suits. Cups (Tarot), Wands (Tarot), etc. ♠P M C♠ 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per above. It may be arcana, but it's notable arcana, and as noted above, there's nothing wrong with stubs or short articles as long as the info is correct and notable. I won't lose sleep if the aggregate option is chosen, but I think suit-based articles have the potential to be too lengthy. 23skidoo 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge after AFD closes. By suits as suggested by PMC seems like a good idea. And what's the story with the NPOV tags?Chunky Rice 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whadaya mean, as PMC suggested? I tell ya I get no respect, no respect at all. As far as the articles by suit being too long, none of the articles look to be more than a paragraph or two, some of which is duplicative, so merging shouldn't result in anything overly long. If one or more individual cards gets to be lengthy it can then be split out into its own article. Otto4711 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. My deepest apologies. I completely agree.Chunky Rice 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to suits per Otto4711. DCEdwards1966 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into individual suits. Things like the Four of Clubs don't have their own articles, so why should Tarot cards? It makes little sense to have a series of individual articles on this subject when it can be handily addressed in four articles. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by suit - The arcanas may be notable, but the cards themselves are not particularly notable independently of their meaning within the overall system. I agree with the nom. that even if likely interpretations were added (and thoroughly sourced) these individual entries would not amount to more than a mass of perpetual stubs. Concerns about the resulting articles being too long can be alleviated by concise editing, and maybe the use of a table. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to merged suits no need for individual articles, but the information is absolutely notable, referenced by innumerable published works in every bookstore I know of. the redirects would enable people searching for the tarot by card to find the merged lists. 69.210.52.60 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Arcana. Distant second choice to merge by suit. The majority of the articles I looked at say nothing more than "The blah of blah is a Minor Arcana Tarot card." Αργυριου (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by suits (or some other fashion). As per Αργυριου, my random sampling showed that several of these articles are little more than "Title is a tarot card. [[Image:''Title'']]". Heavy, sourced articles can be split back out. Not a delete vote -- saberwyn 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all even though it goes against my every wikinstinct; they're far more likely to be expanded than the individual entries for each album by obscure bands we happily tolerate. Iridescenti 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a single article. Saranary 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All of these are easily expandable into full articles. In fact, I shall prove that they can be - give me an hour or so, then have a look at (picking one at random) Ten of Cups, to see how these articles could look with a bit of TLC. AGrutness...wha? 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at your revision I still feel like all of the articles on the cards within the suits can be merged into a single article. Otto4711 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Just because a minor arcana tarot card is nothing but one of many pip cards in a game of tarot, it does not imply a lack of content related to the non-gaming side of the card. There is much content that can be added based upon the usage of a card for divination. There is still more that can be added about the symbolism and background of the card.--P Todd 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Otto's MERGE proposal seems most reasonable. Also, to UsaSatsui This AfD is intended to promote discussion. Despite what Bill O'Reilly may have told you, there is no "war on tarot" being conducted here. I think tarot is a fine card game played in France! Seriously, I think Ptdecker is doing good faith work with the POV concerns. However,whatever POV issues I and a few others may have raised about games and divination are not related to this proposal. My purpose is to see what the community here thinks we should do with all these stubs before any sort of work is to be done on them. Smiloid 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if we MERGE, we will end up breaking them all out again sometime in the future. If they were merged even by suit, if each card was fully fleshed out as they should be the article would be huge. I don't think there is a "war on tarot" (nice pun, Smiloid). But, I do think by pure numbers there are many more users of tarot for esoteric purposes then users of the cards for game play. Seems like a 50%/50% balanced bias towards game play is actually a bias away from the majority of physical people (just my opinion).--P Todd 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine to break them out again when that time comes. As of right now these cards are not in any way fleshed out. I think the authors of all these individual card articles have placed the cart before the horse (excuse cliché ). There is one article on one of the suits. The other 3 suits have been neglected. Articles on the parent class should have been created prior to all these articles on individual members. Also if you look closely, Knight of Swords has an exact clone. At the very least one of those two should be merged/deleted. Again this is not for the games/esoteric debate. I am simply raising a question as to how all these cards should be treated.Smiloid 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Otto into 4 articles on the suitsSmiloid 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All There are multiple schools of thought and research regarding Tarot cards. They can be viewed as historical cultural symbols, they are used by some philosophical systems as spiritual or meditative icons, they are used by many in various ways as so-called "divination tools" (in both formal and informal contexts), and they are used by some for playing of games. Another consideration is that there are many systems of Tarot and the cards do not have the same meanings in each system. If we merge the articles into one larger article, then it would be likely that the merged article will contain images and discussions of many cards and would quickly become be overly long. So, although many of the individual articles are currently stubs, if we leave them be, Tarot enthusiasts and experts of all persepctives will populate the pages with interesting info. Why do we need to be in a hurry about that? Parzival418 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ought this to be transferred to a dedicated Tarot-Wiki, with a link to it from the main Tarot article ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. - Denny 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per UsaSatsui and Andrew Lenahan. -kotra 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and develop; the articles all are rudimentary, and refer to he same two sources. There certainly is a good deal more to included, but it hasn't been included so far. Unless there is a serious effort to expand them, they will be suitable for merging.DGG 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCommons needs more "minor arcana" images. I could make a comment that the Waite 3 of Swords is a clone of the Sola Busca 3 of swords or the ribbon on the 2 of coins Waite deck was inspired by the ribbon that carries the card makers name and date eg "Conver 1760" but I think the lack of appropriate images is one factor hampering the development of these articles.Smiloid 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for several reasons tbe article on each card may be developed further. They all share origin but since one of them is different there has to be a story on how each one of them was designed and the meaning for different groups of people. --FateClub 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness's proof that the stubs can be developed into full-blown articles by themselves. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, don't merge Each of these cards represents meaning in Tarot spreads. In fact, each card represents two meanings: one if the card is right-way up, and another of the card is reversed. These plus descriptions of the artistic symbolism from popular Tarot decks more than constitutes enough content for an article, and leaving these up as individual articles encourages that that work be done.
Merge all per suite - this has actually already been discussed at Talk:Minor Arcana, and i think it's safe to say most people there agree to a merge. It's just no one's bothered to actually do the merging yet... --`/aksha 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wishes to coordinate efforts to improve these pages, please use the discussion page at Talk:Minor Arcana.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chioke Dmachi[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Bio, NPOV, WP:Autobiography Delete Touchdown Turnaround 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete direct cut-and-paste of this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyvio ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. MECU≈talk 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it. Per all of the above. - Denny 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. Take this quote from the lead as an example: The name alone is enough to make you want to meet this multi-talented young actor, musician, and model. Ugh. Burntsauce 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel J. Emanuel[edit]

keep. subject meets criteria for WP:BIO, per points cited in article. Whiskey Pete 01:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among other things, this is exactly the sort of info people seek in/from Wikipedia. jengod 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notableRaveenS 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes BIO requirements. - Denny 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this bio of a notable NIH researcher, but it very much needs expansion. At the very least, it should mention his own publications, because that's the source of the notability.DGG 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Robinson (comedian)[edit]

Local comedian; no sources provided that demonstrate subject is notable accoding to WP:BIO guidelines. Speedy deletion (due to lack of reliable sources was contested. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like he could be notable, but definitely needs references. Possible WP:COI problems as article creator is the subject's brother (see summary of this image). FiggyBee 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here some are references, please help me. I'm ingorant about this wikipedia thing. [47] [48]

Also watch the Arlington Drafthouse link right in the article. If someone had actually clicked on that I can't imagine they wouldn't consider it a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.86.197 (talk • contribs)

None of those references appears to qualify as a reliable source. Also note that WP:BIO guidelines do not include winning a local bar's comedy competition as a criteria for establishment of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvagably WP:COI. Please don't write articles about your immediate family (or extended family, for that matter). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete This person is a legitimate local personality in Baltimore and DC. Rrrobinsonjr 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. It's written like a (bad) comedy article as well. MECU≈talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Delete Joe Robinson, Comedian which is where this article started and is now a redirect to the nominated article --MECU≈talk 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hope his material is funnier than the jokes in this article. Masaruemoto 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Edward Sikora[edit]

I think this is a hoax vanity. While there may or may not be a strongest man competition (a quick google search left me doubtful) This particular individual was no where in google - with or without the middle name. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero references. Zero google hits. Two sentences. Delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment: "hoax" is not in the criteria for speedy deletion in fact there is an explicit exception for hoaxes. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read further. The hoax exception states that "Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous". Since the "Strongest Man in the World committee" does not exist, or is so obscure that Google hasn't heard of it, that makes the article pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i noticed that after posting my comment. Sorry then. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, patent nonsense Alf^Photoman 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Starblind. There is a World's Strongest Man compeition, but this guy isn't listed there MECU≈talk 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He really is the worlds strongest man.

Matthew Edward Sikora is on the student roster for SUNY Brockport and it turns out that Brockport actually holds a competition called "The Strongest Man in the World" and Matt Sikora won in 2005 for his fraternity, Alpha Chi Rho] Molmdaw 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)molmdaw[reply]

Do you have a reference? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if that is the case, it still doesn't show notability. Brockport may call it The Strongest Man in the World" but that doesnt mean much--it means the strongest frat boy at Brockport, which is NN.DGG 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nod reaper[edit]

Delete: Game unit, either move to gaming wiki or delete. Also too less info and lack of sources. --Cs california 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nod technology of Command & Conquer FiggyBee 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per FiggyBee MECU≈talk 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific imperialism[edit]

The term "scientific imperialism" is not frequently used in sociological debates over science. Furthermore, the text of the article is quite messily POV, and cites many references that do not support its thesis. Skinwalker 13:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and bring up concerns on the talk page. This is about deletion, and you haven't cited a valid reason to delete the concept, except "I don't like it." Concerns need to be brought up on the talk page, or you can work on the article to bring it to a higher standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, the nominator did say, "The term [...] is not frequently used in sociological debates over science," perhaps implying non-notability, but the sources already provided and a subsequent brief search show that it's cited in some legitimate articles. It certainly isn't a neologism or anything. Content concerns should be covered on the talk pages, as mentioned above. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently it's an encyclopedic expression[49]

but the article should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I accept that the article is not perfect, BUT I do not think the concerns expressed comprise a sufficient cause for deleting the whole article, which seems a rather excessive reaction. It can be improved and I am happy to have a bash at doing precisely that, including deleting anything that seems unjustified or unsubstantiated. I happen to have more material that can be incorporated into the article, which I have not yet had time to work on. If it is acceptable to others, then I propose to implement these changes and then, dialogue permitting, see how it goes. thanks Peter morrell 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect -- Bubba hotep 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128[edit]

Delete Super Mario 128 is not a game, and likely never was. Miyamoto has stated this at the recent Game Developer's Conference in March 2007, and this should put an end to speculation. Intricate articles devoted to speculation like Super Mario 128 hurt Wikipedia's image. Klondike 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario Galaxy. That's what the game became. --UsaSatsui 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down to bare bones, then merge info about the speculation into Super Mario Galaxy. Have it as a separate section, titled "Mario 128 speculation" or something. Then make this a redirect. ♠P M C♠ 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Super Mario Galaxy. Nothing of note is in the article, just interviews where they stated it became this and was only a working title. The Placebo Effect 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge one or two sentences into Super Mario 64#Remakes and sequels. -- Black Falcon 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, just redirect to Super Mario Galaxy. This article is just a very well-sourced history of a term/idea and speculation surrounding it. If anyone can and/or wishes to perform a merge s(he) may do so as the edit history will be preserved. -- Black Falcon 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Cardile[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Bio, WP:Autobiography, very few google hits, marked for cleanup for months. Delete Touchdown Turnaround 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete filmmaker not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Cardile seems to have dabbled in a lot of things and not really made a splash in any of them. Malla nox 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution[edit]

Delete - all information in the article is redundant to articles on the Constitution itself and List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Since the information is all preserved elsewhere there is no need to merge any of this and the unlikelihood of the article title as a search term means no redirect is needed. Otto4711 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you nominated the wrong one. Delete List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, keep this article, and move Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution over there. "list of proposed" has the potential to become an ugly list since new amendments are "proposed" all the time. "Unsuccessful" at least has the criteria of the items on the list passing Congressional muster, but failing state approval. --UsaSatsui 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I agree, UsaSatsui's comment shows notability of topic, and this article is sustainable and can be kept useful in comparison to a list of all proposed amendments. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and useful. A merge/redirect as noted above may be in order, but that does not require AfD. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is suggesting that the topic is not notable. Notability has not been raised as an issue here so arguing to keep on the basis of notability doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The redundancy of one article to the other is what is at issue. Also noting that it's useful is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When "The redundancy of one article to the other is what is at issue", your first stop should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD. Uncle G 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as only those approved by congress are listed here, which I believe they are. The Placebo Effect 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that the purpose or actual execution of these lists are redundant. They are two distinct, but important topics. Just because there's some overlap doesn't justify deleting something this encyclopedic. --JayHenry 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Actually, is redundancy a valid topic for AfD in the first place? I thought redundancy could either be speedied if it was completely redundant, but was otherwise addressed with a merge discussion on the relevant talk pages. --JayHenry 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect These articles seems to have the same basic idea. It seems like the most reasonable thing to do would be merge and redirect. Tbjablin 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and shorten title Definently an encyclopediac topic--Sefringle 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madtsoiidae[edit]

Article lacks information on notability. Article reads like a personal essay Masterpedia 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid family of extinct snakes, and the article is well-referenced. It probably needs some wikification and cleanup, but that can be addressed. An article in need of cleanup and formatting shouldn't be treated with deletion. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All species, genera, families, etc., living or extinct, are notable. --Eastmain 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons above and the fact that Gigantophis garstini, the biggest snake known is a member of this family. That's notable enough in my book. Dracontes 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and source. Acalamari 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Melanochromis 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Punkmorten 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Definitely notable and cited. It will need some cleanup though. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holmen High School[edit]

Notability. Why should a high school be included in Wikipedia? Robinson weijman 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. ♠P M C♠ 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep more information can be found and it does not have to be noteable to be incluedid on here again there are lot of less noteable article on here if you to get rid of the school articles you have to get rid of those too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)
- "Other crap exists" isn't a valid argument for keeping an article. ♠PMC♠ 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: As long as we're calling kettles black, a reminder that "Just not notable" is an invalid argument for deletion of an article. Can I kindly suggest revisiting the article and addressing notability, for or against, in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PMC. --MECU≈talk 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to local school district per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools are notable, as I argue here; this one hasn't been a vandalism magnet. Noroton 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a precedent for including high schools on Wikipedia.Saranary 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has seveal sources and its notable. LordHarris 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since adding this AFD, the Holmen High School page has been considerably expanded. And now I see a number of Keeps in a row... I'm wondering whether any of the people recommending Keep have a connection to the school? Robinson weijman 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment nope i am not witth the school we all a lot of people who want to keep high school pages on wikipedia bye any way possable so we go artound and improve the articles is that okOo7565 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Sorry, but I don't believe that is a good reason to put a page in Wikipedia. Robinson weijman 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See here for list of other schools recommended for deletion for similar reasons: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools. Robinson weijman 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just like filing a lawsuit, anybody can start an AfD for any reason valid or invalid, and they usually do. The reality is that many of the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools were perfect examples of articles that had already demonstrated notability, or could be (and were) improved to further demonstrate notability. The fact that you and others have decided to nominate schools for deletion is no indication of the merit of these AfDs. I have expanded this article and other similar articles because they deserve to be retained. I never attended Holmen High School, I'm not even quite sure where it's located. But I do know that the article has multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Yes, you are correct that anyone can start an AFD. My intention by sharing the page was not to add weight to this deletion, but simply to share the information in the hope that everyone will make a more informed decision. I have no personal stake in whether or not this page is deleted, except my desire to improve Wikipedia. But I should add that the original article that I nominated for deletion is very different from its current state (which contains much more information). Robinson weijman 11:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - RFD 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as school articles go, this one is pretty well sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and now fully sourced. TerriersFan 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five state championships is enough, even for the skeptical. DGG 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just as every town gets an article, regardless of how small it is; so should every high school get an article. —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks[edit]

This page was already deleted once, on March 3. This article was nominated for deletion again because it was deleted once, and then re-created. AEMoreira042281 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks (2nd nomination)

Comment It was nominated on March 3, 2006, and deleted. It was recreated, got another AfD on September 24, 2006, and kept. Just wanted to clarify that. No opinion on keep or delete. --UsaSatsui 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Been in Maxim, SI, coverage on Fox news and has sources, being deleted and re-created isn't grounds for re-AFD nomination. MECU≈talk 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources appear sufficient to demonstrate notability. JavaTenor 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And the reason for deletion is ....? John Reaves (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it appears fine to me. Acalamari 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree though, that the article could be cleaned up a bit, but that's not a good reason for deletion. If it's notable, but the article is messy, just clean the page up. Acalamari 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock phrase[edit]

It is impossible to determine what this article is supposed to be: is it a list of idioms? A list of catchphrases? It is impossible to confirm what a "stock phrase" is, as a Google search reveals no references to this concept outside of Everything2 and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: original, unverifiable research. ♠P M C♠ 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for this sort of thing. Acalamari 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with fear of flying[edit]

First, it's trivia. Second, it's not objective - some people "don't like" planes, others panic at the very thought, so it's unclear which is meant and what the inclusion criterion for the list is. Third, it lacks sources. Trivia + speculation + no sources = delete. >Radiant< 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MECU≈talk 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it or kill it, with heavy leaning towards the latter. -- saberwyn 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it at the very least, could potentially be interesting but at the moment is meaningless and potentially libellous. Iridescenti 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it or kill it -- really if you list everyone it would be millions of names. SakotGrimshine 10:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to shaving. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-shaven[edit]

The article is basically defining the term "Clean-shaven". The article does not cite any sources and contains OR. Please see WP:DICDEF. This article is not notable but may belong in Wikitionary. Agha Nader 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Facial hair or some equivalent article that could be reasonably expected to be more than a dicdef and to cover "clean-shaven". --W.marsh 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with facial hair.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Facial hair and change wikilink for "clean-shaven" on that page to WIKT:clean-shaven. Ward3001 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaving. Wiktionary already has an article here. "Facial hair" is an acceptable alternative, but I think "shaving" is more related. -- Black Falcon 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaving unless reliable sources are provided that discuss the significance of being clean-shaven in society and support that claim in the article that "The majority of American men are clean-shaven". –Pomte 09:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 38.100.34.2 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Championship Wrestling[edit]

Non notable independent wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They ran ONE show? Suriel1981 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was one TV taping and I read a story on them in Power Slam but they died as soon as they started, not notable didn't stick around long enough to become notable as a promotion MPJ-DK 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robocalypse_now[edit]

Save it for Uncylopedia Antonrojo 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Marked for G1. -- Ben 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hottesome[edit]

A neologism that got 63 google hits, and I imagine some of them were associated with this author (although I am not sure). Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete — Omegatron 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --Haemo 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of posting styles[edit]

Not useful or notable. Original research. — Omegatron 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly OR, all sources are unreliable. No need to merge anywhere. --- RockMFR 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, no RS, not useful. This is an encyclopedia, after all ST47Talk 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unenyclopedic, mostly neologisms/protologisms... "Gimmickposting", for example, gets all of 2 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a bunch of neologisms, and it uses "posting styles" in a different sense from that in the article Posting styles (which discusses top vs. bottom posting) without explaining the distinction. *Dan T.* 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossible to attribute, total original research, and not notable to boot. --Haemo 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of neologisms. "Posting Styles" reminds me of the Usenet Olympics for some reason... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earhart Environmental Magnet Elementary School[edit]

reason non Notable school artcle does not say why school is impotent enough to be on here also high school like it or not in my mind are notable so they should be on here but i am sorry i always say keep the high school articles but no offenice we need to draw the line somewhere Oo7565 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from here, and tagged as such. TerriersFan 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ This article needs wikifying, expanding, cleaning up and improving - not deleting - at the moment its just a lot of copied text but a good editor could really make this article shine. Fornow I opposed the speedy delete and will change to keep if the article is improved. LordHarris 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the speedy delete is without prejudice to a new article being recreated. It does, however, remove the copyright material from the history, to avoid problems with the copyright holders, and allows a clean start. TerriersFan 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just done a large edit to the article and removed most of the copied text. I've tried to rewrite a lot of parts but the article still needs work. I have added a schools info box as well as three seperate references (one of which is the actual schools site). I have placed the hang on to contest the speedy deletion as this article is no longer a clear copyright violation. In the case of afd, I change to keep based on the recent edits. LordHarris 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have removed the speedy now cleanup has started, However, the whole of the 'School History' section was also copyvio so I have removed that. TerriersFan 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lord Harris' changes — kudos! Noroton 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded, and details regarding recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the highedt award that an American school can receive, constitute a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Ribbon schools, in the top 4% of US schools, are inherently notable. TerriersFan 04:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten since it now describes the subject in a notable sense and fulfills our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LordHarris's work makes this worth keeping now. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blue Ribbon award. Xarr 17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per nom. Artaxiad 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki (2)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki

Article on Yet Another Wiki, sourced from blogs and internet "radio" stations (i.e. audio blogs). No evidence it has been the primary sbject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - Zines are an important element of culture and counterculture alike. The zine wiki is a good resource in both the cataloguing and promotion of them. I personally discovered the zine wiki through wikipedia and it would be a shame if other people didn't have the same advantage. Besides, it's basically a sister site using wikimedia technology - you'd think that all of those wikis (certainly the well-maintained ones) would have a place on wikipedia. (Rob 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Non-trivial coverage from publishers not meeting WP:RS, a trivial mention from one which does. —dgies^t_c 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you consider the Small Press Exchange a reliable source? JonathanPenton 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search on Google reveals hundreds of webpages linked to Zine Wiki. The site itself has many thousands of visitors. This is a social and artistic movement that is obviously of some importance. It's imperative that Wikipedia includes articles on such topics, otherwise it will become an encyclopedia that only includes articles that are commercially endorsed or sanctioned by large corporate interests, such as television shows or basketball players. Obscure episodes of television shows are not the true indicator of the culture of a society, no matter how many advertising dollars are behind them, and no matter how many articles have been written about them. Culture can emerge from the internet, from small press publications such as the type that Zine Wiki documents, and may appear to be unnoticed by the dominant culture while having a noticable effect. If Wikipedia is to reflect the culture at large, rather than just that which is commercially sanctioned (a small percentage of the cultural production that affects peoples' lives), then it must include articles such as this one. If we applied the criteria that only aspects of culture that have been throughly documented by large corporate media are to be included, then half the articles on Wikipedia will disappear, particularly many articles on topics such as Punk, and punk bands; the Arts, such as Underground filmmakers; Feminism, and Gay cultures, for just an example, all of which are 'marginalized' cultures, and all of which received little exposure in mainstream media until years after their effect had already permeated the culture at large. Even if the culture of zines and the small press does not personally affect you in particular, be assured it is having an effect on many thousands of others. Many noteworthy writers and artists are, or have been, involved in zine culture and Wikipedia carries pages on them; zine editors such as Aaron Cometbus, Mark Perry, Johanna Fateman, Kathleen Hanna, G.B. Jones, Deke Nihilson, Bruce LaBruce, Donna Dresch, Vaginal Davis and Anonymous Boy, to name but a few. Wikipedia also has pages on movements that originated in zine culture such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, or movements in which zines were an important part such as Punk. It also devotes pages to zines such as Punk Magazine, Kill Your Pet Puppy, Sniffin' Glue, Girl Germs, J.D.s, and Fanorama, among others, all of which have not necessarily been mentioned in The New York Times, but have managed to affect the culture nonetheless. Will Wikipedia now delete all those pages as well? If so, then it's good that Zine Wiki does exist and documents precisely this culture. The importance of this article is obvious. Keep Intheshadows 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much arm-waving, I'm afraid - it's completely irrelevant how many famous people have been involved in zine culture, because this is not an article on zine culture it's an article on a wiki with just over a thousand articles and only 20,000 page views on the front page. Please add multiple non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the short time since this debate began the page views of ZineWiki have already risen to 21,500 from the 20,000 you quoted.Intheshadows 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Wikipedia has an article on the college I attend, the town I live in, the city I grew up in, and a famous person I once met, and a much less famous person I once worked for. So it should have an article about me! Natalie 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWikipedia needs to revise its definition of 'reliable sources'. It could reasonably be argued that the most significant impact on the publishing world in many years has been blogs. Bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan, to give but one example (and there are many), are regarded as credible journalists whose writing is widely dispersed in a manner comparable to syndicated columnists of the previous century and have greatly altered the publishing landscape. Wikipedia, it would appear, is one of the very few places where they aren't taken seriously. In contrast, Wikipedia touts the likes of The New York Times as being a 'reliable source' of information when only recently headlines throughout the world exposed the fact that they published false facts about an individual who had knowingly lied to them. My point is that Wikipedia is pursuing an antiquated notion of what constitutes a 'reliable source'. As Dan 10things argues, you are not the best judge of what a reliable source is. And, as Jonathon Penton asks above, why wouldn't you consider the Small Press Exchange a reliable source? A question, I note, you have not answered. Zine Wiki is quite obviously about zine culture. It is an article about a wiki that documents zines, zine editors and distributors and zine outlets. In essence, zine culture. ZineWiki is an extremely important part of that culture and will only grow in importance. All of the fanzines I mentioned previously never, in their lifetime, had a readership anywhere near the amount of readers who have visited ZineWiki and yet they influenced the culture and you have pages devoted to them. ZineWiki has in all likelihood more readers than any of those zines and is impacting zine culture and the culture at large as we speak. Its documentation of zines and zine editors, its determination to take seriously what is often denigrated as not being serious, is changing the nature of what constitutes publishing; of what is a 'free press', as Leafypie argues rightly; and most importantly, of what is 'trivial' and what is not. You pride yourself that your vanity website gets half as many page views as ZineWiki: you could also be proud of the fact that the amount of viewers of your website probably exceeds the readership of most of the zines I mentioned above. However, your vanity website has not had an impact on the culture. The zines I mentioned did. Likewise, Natalie, the town you lived in, the school you attended had an impact on your life. You wonder, in your comment, why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you: it's because your life did not have an impact on your town or your school and that is why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you. Zine Wiki is having an impact on the culture it is a part of, in the same way that the zines I mentioned and the zine editors I've listed above have had. Therefore, if Wikipedia has pages on those zines, however many readers they may have had, and regardless of whether or not they've been mentioned in The New York Times, then Wikipedia needs to have an article in ZineWiki.Intheshadows 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article went through a deletion nomination just four months ago, what has changed besides ZineWiki growing in content and readers? The multiple verified references from reliable sources makes this pass WP:WEB. In addition to meeting the criteria, ZineWiki appears to be the most extensive resource for zines, zine publishers and zine history available on the Web. Dan10things 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Dan10things (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (I object to being tagged as a sock puppet, I've edited Wikipedia since last year and have made contributions to 8 different articles ranging from libraries and zines to punk and musicians, the only areas I feel I have enough expertise in to contribute.)[reply]
- Most of those citations are either blogs, internet radio, or other 'zines. The only one which I would say really matches WP:RS is the Portland Mercury one, which is just a trivial mention. —dgies^t_c 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine all match WP:RS. You're present the same argument was presented 4 months ago and did not get enough support for the article to be deleted. What new argument in support of deletion can you bring to the table? Dan10things 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there are no reliable sources so you insist we accept unreliable ones. This is a wiki with only about a thousand articles. It is utterly insignificant, it has no obvious reliable independent external coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll try to be more clear: the argument you are presenting is the exactly what was presented four months ago and no one agreed with you. They thought the Portland Mercury article, along with the others, met notable criteria. Overwhelmingly. So presenting this recently failed argument with no extra evidence or effort makes no logical sense. What I ask of you, is what new evidence or argument can you present beyond the one that recently failed? From what I can tell, the article has only increased in notability. It's been featured on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites and it's Alexa ranking shows an increase of 300% in the past three months, an increase of 2,595,580 traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the Portland Mercury was trivial. I said their coverage of that site was trivial as it said little about the site beyond that it exists. —dgies^t_c 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland Mercury is a fairly large alternative paper owned by Index Papers, they also own The Stranger, Chicago Reader and a few other papers. It's home of (and partly owned by) syndicated columnist and radio host Dan Savage. They generally have a lot of paragraph sized articles and blurbs on notable national and regional subjects, which is what that was. It certainly was more than one sentence saying it exists. It's also had similar blurbs on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making my point. The Portland Mercury is reputable, but their coverage was what you just said, a blurb. —dgies^t_c 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are completely wrong. It's unfortunate that as a Wiki editor you place so much importance on print articles, yet have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the industry you are relying on for evidence to support your opinion. You display a complete lack of understanding as to how editorial works at a large or mid-sized publication. To you when I say "blurb" it means "trivial," something without much editorial oversight and review. When I was the music editor at a mid-sized regional magazine, a website or print blurb meant an editorial highlight of the most significant, interesting, or entertaining event, band, album, etc. of the issue. Blurbs are short, usually with a 150-200 word limit in most print and web publications, but they are hardly insignificant. A blurb that runs is picked from a number of submissions by an editorial board, discussed in depth, and the most significant article is picked as the one that runs. It's edited, proofread, layed out, goes through copy editing, etc. just as every other article in a magazine. That's a blurb, it goes through the same proccess as a longer article, only it's shorter. It pains me to have to explain this in such detail, but only someone that has never worked in the media would call a blurb insignificant or trivial. Hell, that kind of talk could get you fired by your editor. If you are going to base your opinions on articles that have run in print publications, by all means, consider actually getting involved in the publishing industry so you can know what you are talking about. That way you may actually be able to contribute an informed opinion to this discussion instead of being so obviously wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love this discussion, although I feel even though I've put together a stronger and more logical argument based on experience in the subject at hand, I'm up against a small group of Wiki editors who ban together in support of one another rather than really thinking about the subject matter and it's significance. Have you actually contributed content to any articles about zines, magazines or the publishing industry? What's your depth of knowledge on the subject matter you so happily judge? Your rules put you in a very narrow and defined box that doesn't let you see the forest through the trees. And when it comes to the subject at hand, which really is zine and self publishing resources, you definitely are not the expert here on evaluating what is or is not a valuable resource. I come from the library/information science world, where experts in the field evaluate and select resources, rather than people like you, the security guards, who usually enforce rules by telling people they can't drink soda pop in library or they are talking too loud. Dan10things 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Dan10things. "The Portland Mercury one" was an article itself dedicated to letting people know about ZineWiki, that's not trivial. Also, the next print issue of Broken Pencil dedicated an entire article to ZineWiki along with an interview they did with me about the site. Which isn't on this site yet because it's not in print yet, but it will be shortly. As Dan said, we were just through this a few months ago and they didn't see fit to delete us then. The site has well over 350,000+ article views and over 550+ registered users in less than nine months of existence. Alanlastufka 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and no independent non-trivial coverage. Which means that the number of page views is irrelevant. And that's only twice as many page views as my vanity website over the same period. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see the point of renominating something which was accepted at the first AfD, and has clearly grown more notable since.DGG 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "accepted", it was no consensus, and since then the primary notability criterion has been drawn up, which gives an objective test for notability. Which this fails. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page you are talking about is less than 4 weeks old and it's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed, do you really think it's fair to use it as evidence to support your argument until it's been fully accepted? Dan10things 06:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No consensus is always fair game for another discussion. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to support the answer to my question, I was really hoping for an explanation because it's unclear to me and I can tell from your profile you spend a lot of time arguing for deletion of articles and are quite passionate about getting into these discussions. Does the WikiPedia community as a whole think it's fair to use a brand new page that's currently under dispute, like primary notability criterion, as evidence to support deleting an article? Or should we wait until it's been fully established and accepted to use it as evidence? Dan10things 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched around, pretty deeply, but alas no sources that make it qualify. Delete, recreate later on down the road if coverage increases per criteria... - Denny 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is demonstrated as notable, through reliable sources. 500 registered users is a drop in the bucket on the Internet. Natalie 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus can change, and it has with the new primary notability criterion. Reliiiiable soooources... -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources as in The New York Times type of reliable sources?Intheshadows 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By all means, keep! Insignificant newsgroups that are less notable than ZineWiki have entries. Tiny little towns with 3 people that are less notable have entries. ZineWiki is a very valuable and respected resource, even among people who have only very little contact with zining. The effort to delete has more to do with silencing independent press than anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.138.5 (talk • contribs)
- You might want to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, one of the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". —dgies^t_c 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to see WP:BASH, specifically this part, "When policy and doctrine is quoted like Scripture, and arguments not founded upon this Scripture pre-emptively discounted, the process becomes more rancorous and divisive than necessary. The various policies and guidelines are meant to reflect consensus. They are not given as laws to set boundaries to consensus. To the extent that a policy or guideline fails to reflect consensus, the policy or guideline requires revision. Familiarity with various policies, guidelines, or essays is something that comes from experience with the project. Only people who have already committed themselves to fairly extensive involvement in the project get deep enough into the mechanics and politics of editing to read that material. As such, quoting them as gospel to newcomers to the project is intimidating, may be seen as hostile, and contradicts current guidelines: "Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism". It is a bad idea for us to have essays or worse, guidelines that invite administrators to treat some opinions as less equal than others. It is a bad idea to announce that opinions on these discussions will be discounted unless they are argued with reference to insider jargon." Dan10things 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a worse idea to use the fact that other non-notable things are included as a reason this one should be, too. -Amarkov moo! 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something I'd like to add: I also think we should "keep" because the ZineWiki is exactly the sort of thing people might look up, and this article would very useful to them. I honestly don't see what the fuss is over "reliability", because that's clearly pretty well covered by sources that make mention of ZineWiki.4.225.137.186 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, SNAP! Point taken. —dgies^t_c 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only sources are blog posts or trivial mentions. Its statistics page is less than impressive as well. Wickethewok 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem with asking for more credible sources from ZineWiki is that the Independent community has none, by your definition. We're rarely covered by the major media sources and our only history lies in what we remember and what we've recorded for ourselves in blogs and in 'zines. My question to you is; does this make it any less valid? Free media, true free media, is defined by the people and their right to free speech, to publishing underground papers and 'zines and their right to disseminate these works. Certainly, under major media attacks on the credibility of Wikimedia and its sources, one might feel the need to do away with all things which cannot meet so-called "higher standards", but one must also ask if this isn't overkill? I believe that ZineWiki is part of free media and therefore held to different standards of what can be considered credible. It's a resource to the independent community, for better or worse, and there-in lies its value. --Leafypie 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — Leafypie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Credible sources are a non-negotiable point. That this has only been covered by other 'zines and blogs suggests it is not notable to the wider world. Nobody is questioning people's right to free speech, but something self-published simply does not carry the same weight as one with with paid staff, editorial oversight, incorporation, etc... —dgies^t_c 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The print media industry is dying. Believe me, I know, I've spent the last 20 year of my life in it publishing zines, newspapers and magazines as well as working in academic libraries. While you may be an expert at Wikipedia rules, my expertise lies in information science and publishing. I've lost tens of thousands of dollars trying to keep print publications alive, but our readers are moving every day away from magazines, zines and newspapers towards websites for news and entertainment. I've watched multi-million dollar library serials budgets move from print publications to online full-test resources. This point is non-negotiable as well, the online media is already taking over the print media, who's days are numbered. At some point Wikipedia will have to deem online news resources as credible media, and honestly, the point isn't now, it was two years ago. It's amazing how far ahead of Wikipedia the academic and commercial world are in this matter. ZineWiki has currently been written about in the following credible and verifiable media resources: The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet, Rivet Magazine, the Underground Media Alliance and the Small Press Exchange. All have an extensive staff and editorial oversight. As someone that's owned, edited and published a magazine with paid staff, editorial oversight, and incorporation, I fully support the ZineWiki article. It's an amazing resource that pulls together in an encyclopedia form decades of independent publications, something you cannot find anywhere else online or in print. Obviously you are not a librarian, nor do you care about the independent press, but realize that for those of us that are and do, ZineWiki is a highly valuable resource. Dan10things 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intrinsic value of the subject of the article is not in question. The availability of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject is. —xyzzy_n 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Underground Literary Alliance and Punk Planet sources aren’t independent. The Small Press Exchange reference does not have any indication of reliability. The other sources are blogs (I include in this description the Flat Four Radio reference) without redeeming importance and therefore not acceptable. In particular, there is no indication that the Portland Mercury reference actually was published in that magazine. —xyzzy_n 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, the Underground Literary Alliance is absolutely independent of ZineWiki. I'm a ZineWiki editor and probably the biggest critic of the ULA (follow the alt.zines discussion if you want to see how wrong you are, it's not pretty). The Portland Mercury, Rivet Magazine and Small Press Exchange are all independent as well. You are correct on Punk Planet, it's print articles on the small press run on ZineWiki. Dan10things 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland thing is a blog entry. I don't know anything about the "ULA", but it really does not look reliable at all (it looks like a personal web site or something). Rivet thing is also a blog entry and the Small Press Exchange is a trivial listing (anyone can post their information there). Wickethewok 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, if you admit knowing nothing about the ULA, why did you say they aren't an independent source in your reason for deletion? That was complete misinformation on your part. FYI, it's not too hard to find out about the ULA, they've grabbed headlines in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. in recent years. I'll I'd ask is that you make an informed opinion, rather than make false assumptions and statements before reaching your conclusion. Dan10things 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of the ULA reference, we find ‘This week's report by Alan Lastufka of Fall of Autumn’; in the article under discussion, we find ‘ZineWiki was created in July 2006 by Alan Lastufka […]’. Something written by the founder of the subject of the article is certainly not an independent source. —xyzzy_n 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before there was the internet, there was the 'Zine. Now, to clarify, the innovation of cheap photocopying created an explosion in the 'small press' that again magnified in the years when powerful graphics capable home computers became affordable BUT the internet was still limited and expensive to get on, or to have a webpage on. This golden era, around 89-94/96 had a renissance of zines. Ah, that young idealism again. bOING bOING...anyone? Yeah, I'm personal on this, I started doing artwork to put stuff in 'zines, then made my own on the computer when I got one, but printed and photocopied them. Comics, artworks, raving rants, etc. It sure beat trying to scale down things to almost Atari 2600 level, then pushing them through a dialup modem who's speed was crippled by companies (from the big dogs to the startups) who didn't FEEL like giving good speed to 'rural' people. I never had an ISDN, it went from 1200 baud to 56k to CABLE. However, I've had stuff published in zines here and there and my zines have reached around the globe. Zines still are an important element of culture, mainly as a bridge between the "Underground" and "Mainstream" and will become quite popular again when either the government or the big companies do a real assault/takeover on the 'net. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) — GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The bulk of contemporary publishing for the last few decades has been zines. There have been more zines published than mainstream publishing - more variety and more innovation by far. Seeing mainstream publishing of mostly bad novels by a handfull of conglomerates, as all that is, is insular thinking. The world publishes zines more than novels. Zinewiki is a reflection of zines, which are the choice of most writers today. I have edited for zinewiki, and I think it has the same reason to be as wikipedia itself - it is an encyclopedia - in this case - of independent publishing. Zinewiki contains all the entries from the Zine Hall of Fame, that Musea started. It is a 10 year celebration of the best of zines. As editor of the 15 year old zine, Musea, I think Zinewiki is the major source of documentation on the major source of publishing of our era. An online encylopedia without zinewiki is an online encyclopedia that is denying the thousands and thousands of indie publishers that have made zines the key literary movement of the last few decades. Musea 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self testimonials are a type of argument to avoid on AFD. They really don't help fix the reliable sources problem. Wickethewok 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While "Hoax" is not a valid speedy delete rationale, I'm exercising some judgment here and deleting this as it is borderline nonsense with no chance of being kept.--Isotope23 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amron[edit]

Obvious hoax. A Google search for "+Amron +Space +Goddess" returns 27 results, none of which are relevant - yes, I actually checked. WP:NFT, WP:HOAX. Maybe a BJAODN candidate. Couldn't quite bring myself to Speedy - not quite incomprehensible enough for G1, and I assume a Space Goddess of Death would be some sort of assertation of notability, thus "passing" A7. So - get your snowballs ready. Action Jackson IV 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UT

Fuck the guy who wrote the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:75.7.208.132 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 March 2007

You know, with a rap sheet as long as this one, it's amazing that Waverly Community Schools is allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. The number of "final warnings" is an absolute joke. --Action Jackson IV 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete dear god. Improbcat 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedier than speedy delete FiggyBee 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Utter nonsense. Acalamari 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I also added speedy delete tag on the article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as copyvio (CSD:G12) of lyrics to Les Miserables (see [50]). MCB 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javert's Suicide[edit]

A plot summary and lyric sheet for a single scene in a musical. I applaud the thought, the time, the effort, but WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Might be a copyvio of Sparknotes or Cliffnotes or something, but I'm happy in my ignorance. Action Jackson IV 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Except for the monologue, all that's necessary for understanding this event is already described in the plot summary for Les Misérables and the already-existing article Javert. Technically, the way this article is written it could also be speedy-deleted for lack of context, the fact that a lot of people know where it's from notwithstanding. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12 The Placebo Effect 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psilodump[edit]

Unreferenced, unverifiable biography which violates WP:AUTO and fails WP:BIO.

Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Vanity autobiography. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and delete the rest of the walled garden too - Never Heal, Memory Loss EP, and You Sick Little Monkey. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd notice in the discussion page for the article he's made a comment that he's going to fix things up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.152.45.99 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2007.

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

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

The result was Userfied as self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dan (UK)[edit]

Ignoring the sad vanity and the fact that this is an advertisement, the lack of true notability in this article's subject shines out. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, is not notable, and is probably OR. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape against United States presidents (3rd nomination)[edit]

Note, this is the third nomination: 1st AFD & 2nd AFD, per Smmurphy's comment below.

(View AfD)

Results of 1st Nomination: (No Consensus)

Delete/Merge=12
Keep=8

Results of 2nd Nomination: (No Consensus)

Delete/Merge=10
Keep=7

The section on Jefferson includes the relationship between him and Sally Hemings, which is covered extensively on Hemings' and Thomas Jefferson's pages. The accusation of rape is merely speculative. The accusation against Ronald Reagan contains only the account by the accuser. There is simply not enough evidence for this to be considered a notable accusation, an argument which is supported by the brevity of the section. Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton, but that accusation is already covered on Juanita Broaddrick's page. The accusation against Bush is a joke. The demented ramblings of a crazy person are non-notable. Because the only worthwhile accusation (made against Clinton) is already covered elsewhere, I'm nominating this page for deletion. Pablothegreat85 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is necessary. Any notable -- and verifiable -- information would already be covered in the applicable biographical articles, and I have WP:BLP concerns regarding the sections about living presidents. 23skidoo 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it were just 1 accusation I too would be for deletion, but it is presidents. I think this article should stay.Lilkunta 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per last AFD: Perhaps the charges are ludicrous, almost certainly the most recent is (as the article makes fairly clear). They are also notable and well-known. The article does not endorse or promote the validity of any of these charges. It does provide a neutral and well-sourced exposition of them. The issue of Jefferson and his slave is certainly speculation by its very nature, but this article does not speculate. It reports notable speculations and research of others; that's exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is the third AFD, the first was under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents, and the second I linked to above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per last AFD. Well sourced, neutral, notable. Derex 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subjects. Violates WP:NPOV because of undue weight problems, and as such, is violative of WP:BLP. Also, "allegations" and "accusations" kinds of pages are WP:OR, as they call for "connecting the dots" and synthesis of published materials in order to advance a position, which is prohibited by WP:SYNT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for every accusation and notion out there folks, let's try to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. MortonDevonshire Yo · 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- False and slanderous. I created the article for exactly the opposite purpose. Anon's kept jamming the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton articles full of this stuff. I got sick of it and decided to spin it off to a sub-article. That avoids the undue weight problem that was in fact present in the main articles. It certainly does not disparage, but makes quite clear that there's not much evidence in any of these notable accusations. It's plainly equal-opportunity politically, so I can't imagine what soapbox you think I was standing on. "Accusation" is not OR, what a bizarre statement, there clearly was an accusation. The article reports the accusation and the evidenced adduced for it elsewhere. It does not make the accusation itself. If you care to make an argument without shrill hysteria about the nefarious motives of other authors, it would be welcome. Derex 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you were upset that anonymous users were vandalizing those pages with this stuff (as well you should be), so you created this page and filled it with the content with which these anonymous users were vandalizing the page. If this is the case (and it may not be), why would vandalism on the presidents' individual pages be acceptable for a separate page? Pablothegreat85 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said nothing of the kind. It wasn't vandalism or I would simply have deleted it. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for Wikipedia; it meets all criteria. The problems was that the material violated the undue weight section of NPOV policy given the emphasis in the main article. I created this at approximately the same time that Arbcom itself recommended the exact same remedy for the John Kerry article. The point is to keep the main article on a subject to the main points; that doesn't imply that other lesser points can't be included elsewhere in Wikipedia. If it does, we'll delete half the damn thing. Derex 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV fork to address vandals, undue weight, etc but POV fork nonetheless. It needs to be in the articles with apropriate weight which is less than a sentence. Or better yet, if the accuser is notable, it should be in the accusers bio and leave the details out of the presidents' bio completely. Even having an article that addresses presidential rape accusations is undue weight. --Tbeatty 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because it doesn't promote or take a POV. There's nothing at all POV about the article. Arbcom itself endorsed this approach to the John Kerry mess, which is about when I created this article, with that experience and remedy in mind. Derex 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The accusations against Clinton have never been shown to be unreasonable and there's always been a lot to them. ~~To blather on about slander shows a partisan spirit and POV.~~ If accusations against the other presidents have something to them or don't, we might as well present them fairly. It's a public service not to leave it only to conspiracy theorists and cranks. Noroton 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that the Clinton allegation is unreasonable. In my nomination, I wrote, "Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton." Furthermore, no one has suggested that the allegations should be presented unfairly. The whole issue here is how to fairly present the accusations, if at all (which only the Clinton one should be). Pablothegreat85 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't participate in these things when I'm too tired. Noroton 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's simply not accurate. The Reagan accusation received quite wide coverage at the time, though it was not widely believed. Jefferson is hugely well known and publicized, though it is admittedly of a different character than the others (and was added by someone else). Clinton goes without saying. The Bush accusation is the most tenuous; it surely would have gone without note in the pre-internet age. However, it is in fact widely known, and the coverage here does a public service I think because neutral coverage pretty clearly implies that the poor woman was desperately ill. Many of the highly partisan sources on the web make it sound like there was a cover-up. I personally think that none of these accusations is accurate, but then the article is not titled "rapes by presidents". Derex 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can put the Clinton discussion to rest. It seems to be consensus that that accusation is notable. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings is widely known, and it is clearly notable. What I don't like is that there is no evidence of rape in the article. Instead, the article quotes speculative sources, and in turn, appears speculative itself. I'm not sure that the Bush rape is that well-known. Should we include content every time a crazy person accuses the president of a misdeed (and I'm sure they've been accused of far worse deeds than rape)? Pablothegreat85 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some argue that consent is not possible between slave and owner, thus rape by modern standards. The point is arguable, but the accusation has clearly been made. If you feel the article is not clear enough about the issues, then constructive response is to edit the article to improve it, rather than delete it. Derex 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand why the article was created, but much of this is spurious and without credibility...even though it supposedly cross examines each issue. I don't think that the information in here is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Allusion to crimal acts in biographies should be avoided at all costs or all we are is a repository of indiscrimnate misinformation.--MONGO 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your AGF Mongo. I understand your concern. However, when a story has been covered by the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times as each of the Reagan, Clinton, and Jefferson cases was, it's not indiscriminate information. It's already notable, we're not adding to that. Its notability that means we have a role to play as a neutral repository of information whether or not the accusations are true. Certainly a great many of the crazy claims against the Clintons are completely unsubstantiated and meritless, and yet we have articles on those which received national coverage and rightly so. Derex 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Bush accusation was only printed in the Fort Bend Star, it says so in the article. What makes the Bush allegation notable? I just cannot see how it is such. Pablothegreat85 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it cannot help but give undue weight to events which are in every case admittedly not proven rapes. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any material like this we include should be presented in context in the person's biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mongo. Add any WP:ATT reliable sources to the article on the President. As for Jefferson, if it was impossible for a slave to consent to sex, it was also legally impossible for a master to rape a slave under the applicable laws of the time. Edison 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But needs major clean up... it seems sourced enough, but might be better off to include each section directly into each subjects' article. Support deletion if the info is merged by the closing admin to the respective articles... - Denny 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fork and POV playground. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Combining all these allegations together because they were made on presidents seems pretty crufty. This information should be kept on articles (or spinout articles) dealing with the individuals involved.-Andrew c 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no particular objection to that. I object to the material being deleted. Putting them together seemed a reasonable solution at the time. Note that someone already created a Broaddrick article by cut-n-paste of the section here. Same could be done for the others, with references to each other or see-also's for context. Derex 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the Clinton and Jefferson allegations are covered in the articles on the presidents and their accusers. That just leaves the Reagan and Bush accusations. Perhaps we could create an article on Selene Walters and Schoedinger? Or perhaps these accusations aren't notable enough to merit inclusion. I understand your concern about deleting content, and I believe that creating articles on the 2 aforementioned accusers could work.-Andrew c 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have all been covered before in other artcles. It's full of weazel words and he said/she said. I don't see the reason for it to exist as it's own article. It's like having an article called 'Actors that played Tarzan' totaly pointless. Mobile 01^Talk 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV magnet and playground. The "information" is based on frivolous accusations, and the thing is the title of the article just targets United States presidents. Should it be more neutral by being titled Accusations of rape against world leaders? Even if were to be renamed as such, WP:BLP issues/concerns would make it hard to maintain. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very imformative. ==Taxico 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soapbox. --kingboyk 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are only these small number of accusations, the 1 or 2 notable ones are worth separate articles , and the others go into the general bios article. DGG 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO, this is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not for the sum total of all human knowledge. Content about presidents from the USA that have actually raped might be more noteworthy, but that would belong in the biographies of those presidents. — Rico 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Accusations of criminal misconduct against a US president is of historical value. --FateClub 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notable cases are/should be discussed in each individual bio; the rest is unencyclopedic chatter which doesn't belong on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the relevant bits into the relevant bios as was mentioned above, otherwise it is forking, really.. Baristarim 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per majority votes in previous elections, AND clear POV fork--Sefringle 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI do not think that this page will promote the harm that is alledged, as long as they stay only accusations. Clay hatcher 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of superhero film and television series[edit]

Delete - See first AFD here. In the six weeks since the AFD closed there has been no improvement to the article, indeed, no edits at all other than a bot-assisted disambiguation. In re-reading the discussion from that AFD it's clear to me that the "delete" arguments were far superior, especially the arguments put forth by Serpent's Choice. With theatrical releases, re-releases, special editions, director's cuts, double dipping DVD releases with previously unreleased bonus footage, etc. there is no real clear consensus as to the running times for many of these projects. Add to that the concerns with how to count various projects featuring one character or another. Much was made in the previous AFD of a BBC article that talked about Doctor Who being the longest-running sci-fi show, however, that citation indicates a fundamental misinterpretation of the BBC article. It was talking about what series had been on the air the longest with the most individual episodes, not what series, with all episodes run one after the other, would take the longest to get through. Many of the !votes to keep were based on sentiments like "it was kept the last time and that's good enough for me" (referring to a completely different AFD of a completely different article), ignoring the reality that consensus can change. Others talked about how useful or interesting the article supposedly is, which are not strong arguments for keeping. Still others compared the article to other articles to justify its existence, which again is a weak argument. Finally, consider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lengths_of_fantasy_film_and_television_series for a similar article which was deleted. Otto4711 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if it's a violation in principle of WP:NOR but it certainly comes off as a violation in spirit. Needs to be continually updated, and is instantly rendered inaccurate by syndication edits, local broadcast standards, etc. I support deletion of Lengths of science fiction film and television series for the same reason. 23skidoo 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's true, the people who voted keep before haven't used the previous nom as an incentive to improve the article. Also - where's Spiderman? (and many others) Masaruemoto 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate. There is no encyclopaedic topic for length of an arbitrarily chosen type of film, so a list of them is simply fancruft. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lengths of science fiction film and television series (unless someone successfully nominates that for deletion). -Sean Curtin 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would make more sense to merge it into Lengths of fantasy film and television series, but for some reason that one was deleted while the science fiction one was twice kept.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Louise[edit]

Questionable notability for this singer, she's released an album on an obscure label, "Starfisch Records" - most Google results for it are in connection with Karen Louise. Apart from the she was one of the support acts on a tour for a moderately successful band. I can't see that she meets WP:MUSIC Masaruemoto 20:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found this [51] independent, reliable source, but the complete lack of commentary makes it purely a primary, not secondary, source. Articles should be built from secondary sources. SmokeyJoe 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, if expanded with more references etc it should stay although. Artaxiad 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dutchess. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy (Fergie single)[edit]

No confirmation that this will be released as a single, article also titled incorrectly per naming conventions ("single" rather than "song"). Suggest redirect to the album page until confirmed. - eo 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct the article. Acalamari 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Artaxiad 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dutchess. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestal (song)[edit]

No confirmation that this will be a single - crystall-ballism at best. Suggest redirect to the album article for now. - eo 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to The Dutchess. Acalamari 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if possible per above. Artaxiad 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Chatter[edit]

Originally listed as a speedy and deleted by me as such, but after that I reversed myself and decided to give this the benefit of an AfD. There is no credible claim for this podcast meeting WP:WEB and from what I can tell, the one "reference" in the article actually makes no mention of the podcast. My opinion is Delete, but I'll let the community decide this one. Isotope23 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few (if any) podcasts are notable. I've only seen one mention of the podcast in my 2+ years on the VFTW boards, so its importance in the AI community is disputable. Caknuck 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you were right with the speedy tag, actually - this is a fan review not an encyclopaedia article and the claim to notability is not credible - "one of the most popular" is completely unsupported by any kind of data. Plus the creator's only contribs are this and spamming podcasts to other articles. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save any help to make it a more encycopaedic article is welcome, as it is similar to 'Keith and the Girl', another podcast that is one of many listed. The new medium of podcasting will only grow, so more podcasts will need to be listed. Sound quality, production values, listenership, comments about the podcast are good enough for me. As for it being "notable"- that's highly a matter of personal opinion. Libsyn does not release figures to prove their audience, but itunes listeners have great comments about it, as do those on podcast alley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senatorsfan (talk • contribs) — Senatorsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per above. Real96 08:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Not really sure how to use this site yet, but thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I'm a big fan of pottercast and mugglecast. This podcast may not be notable yet, but it is well on its way. I just listened to an episode and it is polished and well-produced. If it is deleted, try again next year. Or re-work the entry. --141.117.77.110 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)profplum profplum — 141.117.77.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Save I hope me not signing the note isn't bad. I didn't know how to. I will click on signature and copy what you guys have done and hope it works. And as far as spamming- I was only seeing how to add a link: it wasn't "spamming" in the sense of the word most people would associate it with- and it's not like it was numerous sites. Reconsider, or give some valuable suggestions, please. Thanks guys. Senatorsfan--Senatorsfan 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Note: This user has already voted. Real96 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isotope23. -- Black Falcon 22:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics[edit]

Delete as redundant to Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). Otto4711 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree it's redundant to the previous articles. A case could be made for creating a category, however. 23skidoo 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They're definitely redundant; not sure I particularly like the naming on either. Probably would have gone with a redirect to the latter of the two, but now that we're here, I figure we might as well get rid of the redirect as it isn't a likely search term. -- Jonel | Speak 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I dropped a mention of this nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not a fan of lists, but this list contains encyclopedic information that isn't easily or quickly derivable from the Bids for Olympic Games article. Moreover, a category would only serve to note that the city had failed at least once for a bid; it wouldn't show how many times they had failed and in which years. --Charlene 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that this is redundant because it organizes the information in a different way. These lists are complementary. I suppose, however, that you could merge the two lists -- basically making this a second section on Bids for Olympic Games. Either way, not a discussion for AfD. --JayHenry 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This can perfectly be put as a section or table in Bids for Olympic Games. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a handy list Lugnuts 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Handy? For senior officials of the most important cities in the world, for the rest of us, I doubt it. So... Delete per Parutakupiu. --FateClub 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if redundant, as should be done for anything redundant. It is important to keep histories and discussions. SmokeyJoe 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list on second thought is comprehensive and may qualify for WP:FL. the title should be reworded though. --RebSkii 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new section in Bids for Olympic Games. I agree with Charlene that a category wouldn't work. Mike Christie (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains information not found in the two cited articles (for older years) and also presents the information in an alternate format. I will try for a cleanup of the list's appearance. -- Black Falcon 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have converted part of the list into table format that lists entries by: Country, City, Failed Bids. I would appreciate any comments (either here, the article's talk page, or my talk page) as to whether I should proceed with this format or suggestions for an alternate format. Thanks, Black Falcon 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like the format, but more than ever this now appears suitable as a section in Bids for Olympic Games. Is there some reason not to put it there? Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, two reasons. Firstly, I generally prefer merges to be conducted outside of AFD. I know this is just a personal preference, but I think it allows for a merge to be performed with more deliberation and more participation from other editors. Secondly, Bids for Olympic Games sorts by year, whereas this article (which really needs to be renamed) sorts by country and city (formerly just city). The two are currently not redundant, as Bids for Olympic Games does not include information on failed bids prior to the 2000s. Ideally, all of this information should be in one article, but the problem as I see it is this: how can we merge all of the information into one place without reducing readability and usability? All of the information in this article can be merged into Bids for Olympic Games, but I don't see how the alternate presentation format can be preserved (simply converting to a sortable table won't suffice). Perhaps you can offer suggestions? -- Black Falcon 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see your points. How about adding another column for successful bids, and then simply adding the resulting table as a section in the Bids article? And regardless, as you say, this discussion doesn't really belong here. Shall we move it to the talk page of the article? Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Olympic bids are major city events it is notable to list how many times each has failed. Merge is unnecessary and would complicate the other list(s). –Pomte 09:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mike Christie. --Palffy 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Bids for Olympic Games or into Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). 38.100.34.2 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Las Flores[edit]

This article about a "city" has absolutely no information at all. It is unclear how important it is, as it could be the most insignificant little village in El Salvador. Delete! R.smithson 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prior consensus has established that named population centers are notable by default. I have no doubt that there are many source regarding this city. No reason to delete the stub it will grow some day. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The subject has various ghits, and I found a few websites [52][53][54] detailing its history, although they're in Spanish. The place is notable, as it appears its origins are linked to past conflicts and wars in El Salvador. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as cites automatically notable. ask nominator to do at least the minimum ammount of checking in future. ⇒ bsnowball 08:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the nominator is a new user.
Keep. Any town, no matter how small is notable. There are tons of tiny villages in the USA that have articles! 11kowrom 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Redvers (copyvio). --- RockMFR 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia to officially claim back Khmer Krom[edit]

This is not so much an article as a letter to the editor. Contested prod. Delete because Wikipedia is not the place to make a point. ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CART[edit]

1. Non-notable movie, or does not assert notability; 2. one of 30,000 entrants in a major ongoing competition, best to avoid linking to entrants until the judging is over, to avoid any suspicion of prejudice or promotion. (If the film is notable, propose removing the link). Notinasnaid 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete being "under consideration" is not a claim to notability, Guy (Help!) 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. - PoliticalJunkie 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close - The article appears to have been deleted (speedily, presumably) even when the log entry appears to be AWOL at the moment. Judging from the deleted content it appears to be a complete and utter hoax though; not sure if we need to drag it through Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Dirty Briefs[edit]

Is this unencyclopedic?? Even if the incident is encyclopedic, does it deserve its own article?? Doctor Nigel Lewis 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooping[edit]

I speedied this earlier today but the author's made a potentially valid point on Talk:Scooping - since I've not got the knowledge to expand/cite it and s/he doesn't appear to be doing so I'm AfD'ing to give the 5 days to clean it up or provide material to clean it up. As I say on the talk page, if the author can provide sources I'll happily expand the article myself and request the AfD be withdrawn. Since (on User_talk:Sarahpw4444) the author says "I'm a semi-vandal too. Not so much the "obvious" stuff, just little bits here and there.", my hopes aren't that high, and I look forward to a week of reverting vandalism to my talk page... Iridescenti 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unattributed neologism or possibly a hoax, that even if it were a common phrase, would probably fall under Wikipedia is not a dictionary. By the nature of the word, a Google search is tough, but searching "scooping nipples "bean dip"" finds nothing relevant.[55]. Not even an entry at urbandictionary [56]. Awaiting sourcing with unbated breath and hoping Iridescenti (and I) won't need too big a shovel.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nonsense entry. Article was nominated for speedy by Iridescenti but article's creator removed the speedy tag.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt and the Briefs Controversy (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discounting WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL votes, which is basiclly all the keep votes. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on Family Guy (2nd nomination)[edit]

None of these terms are actually neologisms or even protologisms. As far as I know, Family Guy has not spawned any actual neologisms. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and specifically, it's not a collection of quotes, which is what this is (or, even worse, non-quotes that attempt to recreate humor and fail.) Only one item is sourced, and its source doesn't assign any importance to the term, nor does it establish that the term is used in the general population, but rather is used by the Family Guy writers. In fact, the only term in the list that's even used in more than one episode is "giggity", but reducing a list to a single item is stupid, and in any case that's not a neologism. 1st nom. Delete. Mango juice^talk 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joie de Vivre 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A word made up on a single occasion as an attempt at humour is not a neologism, it is a construct. This list is wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are not neologisms, at the very least the page is misnamed. Neitherday 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely less than a year has passed and Family Guy is still popular and its neologisms are still working its way into pop culture, slowly but surely. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. Once they are established, and this can be proven with reliable, independent sources, we'll talk. Mango juice^talk 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for "giggity" (shold be in an article about Quagmire), I've never heard these used outside of the show. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Given that they're not neologisms, they're unsourced and the article is a crystal ball at best, I'm honestly surprised that this ended up with No Consensus last time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and non-notable, as I've seen every episode and even I don't remember most of these. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You must be hanging out with a pretty old crowd if you don't remember these outside of the show. Ooh, snap, I went there! Augurr 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the citations for their widespread use outside the show are where? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page, along with certain articles on hip-hop topics, proved very useful to me the last time I volunteered to monitor my grandchildren's IMs. PrimeFan 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That something is useful isn't an argument to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PrimeFan's argument multiplied by the argument that the article and its talk page are quite enlightening. CompositeFan 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If by englightening you mean, full of unverified stuff that makes us remember funny Family Guy episodes. And, as BigHaz says, "It's useful" is a bad kind of keep argument: lots of useful information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope the admin closing this pays attention to how weak these keep arguments are: no one has addressed any of my concerns in the nomination. Mango juice^talk 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Joie de Vivre 16:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joie de Vivre had already stated his/her vote on 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC). 141.217.41.212 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I forgot that I had voted already, and I didn't see it in the list because it was at the very top and formatted incorrectly (indented too far). Sorry about that, it was totally an accident. Joie de Vivre 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Clemen," "dipsoluscious," "fastizio," "gatilsday," "giggity," "hic-a-doo-la," perhaps "sideboob," certainly "slappywag" and "tumorsyphilisitisosis" are all Family Guy neologisms, deserving of listing just as much as Simpsons neologisms. Even if it turns out that none of these were coined by Family Guy writers, Family Guy remains an important means of transmission and take-up for these terms and the show gets credit for them. Each item is sourced to the episode in which it appears, and prior to this second nomination, the article has had three other sources (not just "one" as the nom claims). The second source, alphabetically, [Delarte, 2005], which is mainly concerned with nitpicking Family Guy continuity, apparently finds "hic-a-doo-la" important enough to list as a "dictionary" entry (misspelled on page 29 with an extra H at the end, a correction was issued in August 2006!). [Callaghan, 2005] does indeed establish that "slappywag" is used by staff writers, not the general population. But if we limit ourselves to the main target demographic through the filter of myspace.com, Google searching gets the following number of results:

clemen 1030

dipsoluscious 4

fastizio 209

gatilsday 0

giggity 72300

hic-a-doo-la 175

sideboob 1210

slappywag 303

tumorsyphilisitisosis 4

I'm of course surprised by the lack of results for gatilsday, but even just four results for the hard-to-spell "tumorsyphilisitisosis" confirms that the general population will make an effort to take up Family Guy neologisms. In conclusion, I think it's a vulky idea to delete this article. ShutterBugTrekker 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Frank Grimes will deflate each one of my arguments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...[reply]

will make an effort? Is this from your crystal ball? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search hits alone can't make for sources.. but even if we're estimating prominence here, 1210 isn't going to be very convincing. Mango juice^talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your right, 1210 isn't impressive. but what happens when you take off the "site:myspace.com" searchfilter for "sideboob"? it goes up to "about 16,600" Numerao 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! The first result is sideboob.org. Then there's a page of Lindsey Lohan sideboob pictures (blacklisted hyperlink) with Peter Griffin strategically placed to cover her nipple, and a sound clip of him saying "Look at that sideboob!" Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these neologisms have already made (past tense) their way into the popular lexicon. The crystal ball would be whether they disappear completely, stay the same or increase in presence in the future. Robert Happelberg 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they haven't. Obviously we have some Family Guy fans here. *You* may be aware of these terms, but arguments like "these have made their way into the popular lexicon" are, frankly, completely made-up. Show us some actual proof. Mango juice^talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Having done a quick Google search the terms all appear notable, notable television series. Requires some more references as well, however. Matthew
- I disagree. What Google tells me is that there are a number of Family Guy fans out there, which is hardly revolutionary information. The fact that they call their MySpace profile "fastizio" (for example) does not notability make. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not paper and notability. I added a ref. Apparently family guy is big business in ring tones, so some of this is in the news. - Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what the significance of the reference is. So one particular phrase is a popular ringtone, what does that prove in terms of the notability of this list of pseudo-neologisms? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It speaks to notability. The more independant sources, the more notable. No more, no less. - Peregrine Fisher 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It speaks to the notability of one phrase being used as a ringtone, not the notability of that phrase (or any other) being a neologism with a life outside of the show. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "It speaks to the notability of one phrase being used as a ringtone." Yes. "Not the notability of that phrase." The phrase = the ringtone. "(or any other)." I'm not talking about any other phrase. "Being a neologism with a life outside of the show." If it isn't a family guy neologism, delete it, the ringtone and the article are definitely outside the show. - Peregrine Fisher 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that people have Quagmire saying "giggity" on their phone doesn't make the phrase a neologism. It makes the phrase a popular thing to have on your phone as a ringtone. A friend of mine has "Oh my God, they killed Kenny. You Bastard!" as a ringtone, but that doesn't make the phrase a neologism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's not a neologism, remove it. This page should only contain neologisms. I'm not saying its use as a ringtone makes it a neologism, I'm saying it makes it notable. - Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Perhaps a renaming per parallel to older iconoclastic shows might be in order. Anton Mravcek 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insert here whatever argument in favor the opposition would like to discredit in a few minutes after this posting. Anton Mravcek 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the excellent and intriguing points made by Robert Happelberg. Smee 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- You mean the discredited ones? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unattributable fan-OR in action, apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on numerical evidence alone. Numerao 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only one that would have a case is giggety. TJ Spyke 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. The only term used generally outside of Family Guy is "giggity-giggity-giggity". Produce some sources to back up the claims that the other terms are used frequently and I'll change my vote. JuJube 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nominator. — MichaelLinnear 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No point folding them back into the article and the shows themselves are the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for inclusion. --Haemo 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of these have WP:RS asserting notability, and no compelling arguments have been made for keeping them. --Haemo 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golds Hill tram stop[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. The actual stations have still 6 years to open! This information should be added to Wikipedia nearer the date. JameiLei 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same case:[reply]

Keep. The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension, etc.) Order 2005 appears to define the route of the city centre extension quite precisely. The order is not an act of parliament, but has the same effect as if it was. If the proposed stations are on the route defined by the order, or on a different route defined by another order of the same kind, then I would argue that stub articles about the stations are legitmate rather than crystal-balling. As well, Great Bridge tram stop discusses the former railway station at the same location. --Eastmain 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not exist yet, and when it does, it will still only be a tram stop, which is little more than a glorified lamp post. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Tram stops are no more inherently notable than mailboxes, especially future ones. However, if numerous independent reliable sources have subatantial coverage of it (it might be architecturaly significant, or poorly located, or a boon to mankind, or too expensive, etc) then an article could be created. Edison 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, but a tram stop that doesn't yet exist really doesn't warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Gwernol 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Yahya Laidi[edit]

Biographical article with no assertion of notability other than (unsouurced) list of newspapers he's been mentioned in. I haven't speedied it just in case he is of importance - however Google doesn't show one single hit. Iridescenti 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Note You may want to google "Ashraf Laidi" as this produces 28,000 hits. I have made the mistake of including middle names before too. No vote at this time. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point (doh!) - however in this article's case, doing this has actually made me change my vote to speedy delete as it's a blatant copyvio[57] Iridescenti 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:BIO--Sefringle 04:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Confirm that it's a blatant copyvio. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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