Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

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 no request to delete present, speedy close. This AfD was never listed, and it looks more like a talkpage comment or helpme request than an AfD. I'm copying the nomination reason to the talk page of the article where it may get the right sort of input. Feel free to start another AfD if there is an actual request to delete. --ais523 13:30, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

Malays with European descent[edit]

Reason Fantastic4boy 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Reason: The reason why I changed Euromalay with Malays of because Euromalay is a new term I made up and hardly anyone else has heard of it - thus not meeting the Wikipedia original research requirements. Therefore, using "Malays with European descent" is more appropriate and more evident, especially with a number of celebrities these day with Malay and European parentage such as Maya Karin, Azlan Iskandar and Ashraf Sinclair. Is it alright if I use "Malays of European descent" or do I still need to change the terminology's name? --Fantastic4boy 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled blink-182 album[edit]

Recreation of a fake blink-182 album. I changed the article name to "Untitled blink-182 album" since there's no title for the new album and since there's already an articles for deletion page for One for the Kids. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One for the Kids (blink-182 album). Alex 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no such thing as a new blink-182 album coming out next year. The hiatus is not over, no one is in the studio to record it and no one in the band has confirmed about the reunion. Alex 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and WP:V. There is no factual information in this article at all. Jayden54 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - crystaballin' and bad one at that. SkierRMH,23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and WP:V. A possible hoax as well, since it cites no sources -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - The RSJ 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as CSD G4 repost, just restates (poorly) what was said in the previously deleted article. Also salt, this is like the 3rd or 4th repost of the same stuff. No verifiable sources have been provided. Tubezone 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZsKnight[edit]

While zsKnight has done some great stuff for the SNES emulation community, he appears to fail WP:BIO. I am looking to have this article deleted or redirected to the ZSNES article. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) }}[reply]

Delete, assuming no reliable sources are found. I can't find any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO-DESU 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person seems notable at first glance, but fails the biography policy in the long run. Atlantis Hawk 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above concerns and of course Notability. — Seadog^Talk 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above concerns. Somitho 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Ter e nc e Ong 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ZSNES, although I find an almost uncanny resemblance of this AFD with Doug Bell. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while zsKnight is awesome, the rest of the world has failed to notice it, so he remains non-notable. Koweja 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge/redirect to ZSNES. --- RockMFR 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to ZSNES. SkierRMH,07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and per nom. Same thing I guess. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - The RSJ 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the most widely used SNES emulator ever. SUrely the developers are notable at least for a stub. Milto LOL pia 03:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While ZSNES may be the most widely-used SNES emulator on the Intel platform, the developer is not notable. He has only created one product of significance, and therefore should be included in the ZSNES article and nothing but. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Dudeens[edit]

Once all the unverified, unreferenced material has been excised from these two articles, all that's left is a dicdef for dudeen, an Irish smoking pipe. Suggest a transwiki for Dudeen and deletion of Nine Dudeens per WP:V. Only reference given is to a generic definition of a smoking pipe. Tubezone 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to User:Uncle G for adding references to dudeen as a smoking instrument, and adding points in the Dudeen article for where citations are needed for the other, ahem, stuff. Tubezone 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Tubezone 01:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I agree. Atlantis Hawk 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Dudeen, delete Nine Dudeens SkierRMH,07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and all the rest. Per nom. — Seadog^Talk 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close and delete per overwhelming consensus that this is an elaborate hoax. I'll be listing the "tuba" images that are not otherwise used at WP:IfD and issuing a strong warning to the apparent primary perpetrator of the hoax, User:Yeanold Viskersenn. Sandstein 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba (mythology)[edit]

Appears to be an elaborate hoax, the references in the article do not appear to be legit, see talk page for this article for a discussion of the references and images on this page. Also see Mongolian Death Worm for a cryptid of this region with better, albeit somewhat iffy, references. Tubezone 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. I'm sure that the author has a successful career in creative writing to look forward to, though. :) Tevildo 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly BJAODN simply because of the amount of effort that obviously went into it. FiggyBee 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just an elaborate hoax. TSO1D 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Unlike most hoax situations, the article creators and contributors have lots of good-faith edits. Has anyone contacted them about this article or the nomination? Newyorkbrad 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a valid point, although many of the edits were mere cleanup (it's not unusual for editors to clean up articles that they don't suspect are hoaxes), I tossed some adw warning templates on the talk pages of the author and the people who made most of the actual contributions. Tubezone 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the nominator's conclusion, but we'll see what they have to say, whether it's adding references, or 'fessing up to some ... exaggerations. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a post on my talk page drawing my attention to this debate. I only did one cleanup edit on the article, and had never heard of the tuba before that. Having snooped around the net, I can't find any non-wikipedia-dependent citations for the tuba. The three named cryptozoologists (Coleman, Beckjord, and Zhamtsarano) appear to be legit, but I'm not sure about Chalmers. His article and other mentions of him appear to be by User:HawkerTyphoon, a major contributor to the tuba article. None of this is strictly evidence of a hoax. More suggestive evidence, however, is the fact that the "16th century painting" of a tuba with rider, displayed prominently on the tuba article, is also found on this page, only there the mount has feet. It looks to me like the "tuba" image has been modified. Geoffg 03:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything appears to be legitamate to me. Atlantis Hawk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything appers to be legitimate unless you actually follow up on the sources. Rklawton 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BJAODN for sure. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. I've lost my sense of humour about this kind of crap on wikipedia, especially when the smartarse creators have put effort into making their vandalism as believable as possible. Especially when it means that honest websurfing citizens are fooled because they thought they could trust wikipedia. I would very much like to see punitive sanctions imposed against the article creators. I don't know why, but hoaxers hardly ever seem to get punished even when they're found out (while newbies who make 3 little repeat edit reverts are immediately pounced upon with user blocks). Bwithh 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some small smidgen of truth to the existence of a myth here, but there's so much original research, unreferenced content, and patent silliness (like the altered picture) here, it's hard to tell. Also, the existence of Realth Chalmers, (who supposedly reported the existence of the myth) has been questioned, but references to his article have not been forthcoming despite requests on the talk page. Mr. Chalmers is referred to on the first draft of this article. Tubezone 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to cut to the chase and take out the hoaxers, where there's much smoke that there's clearly fire Bwithh 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have opened an afd on Realth Chalmers. Also investigating other articles created by the same editors. ~~HMS Tapir is suspect too for instance.~~ (just needs scrubbing of tuba/chalmers infection) This better not turn out to be substantial serial hoaxing. Bwithh 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unverifiable; irrelevant sources clearly added to lend the feel of truthiness to the article. Bwithh makes a good point, yet I'm still chuckling. "The Cricket and the Tuba"? That's funny! JGardner 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong Delete, hoax. Somitho 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Please write some decent, encyclopedic articles, of course we will send this to BJAODN. Lots of crap articles nowadays, that's why we have more articles. Ter e nc e Ong 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Origins of the Hoax A nonsense article from the creator's user page history. Bwithh 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -> Speedy and shoot the author. Rklawton 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bwithh's research, the doctored picture, the faked "screenshot" from an unrelated IMDB entry (looks like 3rd grader drew it), the two-man campaign to spread this by adding it all over wikipedia (and the web)...Should I go on, or is that enough? Wavy G 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Author you wrote well but you need to do your creative writing somewhere else and stick to just the facts here. --John Lake 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN sounds like a fairy tale -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I saw this one earlier, but didn't spot it for a hoax, to my shame. I've removed references to it from HMS Tapir (P335) and Buzkashi. Several apparently different users seem to have been involved in this.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bwithh et al... SkierRMH,08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close and delete, same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology), involving the same suspected hoaxers: User:HawkerTyphoon and User:PatrickSW. Sandstein 10:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realth Chalmers[edit]

Deletion nomination Dubious article by suspected serial hoaxer. Fails WP:V. Zero hits on google books[1]. Zero hits on google scholar[2]. Zero hits in the University of Wales library catalogue[3]. No reliable hits on general google[4]. See also related afd for Tuba (mythology) Bwithh 04:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hoax. The cited work "Chalmers, R: Dyddiadur / Journals 1805 - 1810" does not appear in the holdings of any of the World Cat libraries, which libraries include all of the major research libraries in anthropology in the US and UK. The University of Wales itself does not have a physical library, only an online one, their staff use the physical library facilities at Cardiff University. Individual members institutions of the University of Wales do have their own libraries, such as the one at Bangor. None of their catalogs list any works by Realth Chalmers. The catalogs include archives and reference works. --Bejnar 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, 6 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See AfD Tuba (Mythology) for reasoning / Hoax. Somitho 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another hoax. Ter e nc e Ong 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - no point in waiting around when it's WP:SNOWing. Rklawton 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy delete' as per prior article. SkierRMH,08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, WP:OR.--John Lake 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deizio talk 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porngata[edit]

Non-notable porn website, the article reads like an ad with an overabundance of external links. The presence of the "citation style" tag in the article as created makes me suspect it is a repost of a page previously deleted. FiggyBee 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. MER-C 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and possible WP:SPAM as well. To that I'd also add that while Wikipedia is not censored, I find such extensive links to actual pornography sites to be in poor taste. Wintermut3 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Did some minor clean up, though I see no reason at all to keep this article. wtfunkymonkey 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another website. Atlantis Hawk 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Links to actual porn sites? Yes, Wikipedia, isn't censored, but this just takes it over the edge. I wonder how many other porn-related AfDs I'll see today.. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails to assert notability, it should have db-web on it. Pumeleon^T 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete - I dont think this really even needs to be explained. Somitho 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly even speedy delete due to lack of any assertion why this site is notable within the milieu of the billions of porn-related sites per WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what's funny is that the article DISCUSSES it's non-notability. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it's just begging for it! SkierRMH,08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not a speedy, though). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Pumeleon. Danny Lilithborne 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per A7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koyote Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. Generates 12,600 google hits. Bobblehead 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there is no real assertion of notability in this article, however I do believe it is notable. Atlantis Hawk 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was OK, we can delete this before it gets any sillier. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters that reguarly wear shorts[edit]

Unnecessary list topic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WarpstarRider 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I am writing on the psychology behind wearing shorts as my English 15 college essay, and this article is cited in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Um... How exactly can you use one sentence and a list of three people, one of whom is Spongebob, for a psychology paper? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that fictional characters such as Charlie Brown and Spongebob make wearing shorts look "cool" and "hip" to young kids who watch such programs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    - And you need this particular article to note that both characters wear shorts why? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Otherwise, I would not be able to prove that both characters wear shorts with only one source. I would have to use at least two sources and that would push my paper to 11 pages in length, and I only have 10 pages left on my campus printer account. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
        You're using Wikipedia as a source? Oh, lordy. 129.89.191.226 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One might wonder why you'd add a nonsense entry [5] to an article that you're supposedly using as a source for a paper. WarpstarRider 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hulk was included in my paper because I considered him a powerful influence among children, and most children admired him for his shorts that had the ability to stay on him no matter how big he got. Crystallina was also cited in my paper because of her role in the said movie. I needed at least 5 examples to prove my point, according to paper guidelines.
    - So, wait, you're using Wikipedia to construct a source for your article? That is bad. Regardless, we can't keep articles because people are using them as references. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crystallina isn't a character in any movie. Cut it out and quit wasting everyone's time. WarpstarRider 02:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a small film unreleased to the public that she will deny. Nevertheless, it strengthens the argument in my paper. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
        So if it's a film about a real person, why did you put it in a list of fictional characters? Koweja 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here in America, people have a right to the truth! If you want to delete that truth, you are also deleting freedom. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
        What the heck? Wikipedia isn't bound by the Constitution, you don't have the right to have whatever you want here. Even if it is the truth. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, so it is no problem to you if this place turns into a house of lies? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
- Not having everything which is true doesn't make what we do have untrue. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should re-word. Hiding the truth turns this place into a house of deception --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.45.40 (talk * contribs).
    - We're not hiding the truth. We don't have articles like this, and we freely admit it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - But to delete a truthful article such as this one would be to delete the truth, would it not?
        Quit your disruption. We are not by any stretch required to keep this article merely because you are using it as a citation. Yuser31415 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, have you ever considered writing a paper thats, you know, less stupid? I mean, some poor graduate student is actually going to have to read your ten pages on the vast right-wing shorts pimping conspiracy. (by the way, delete the damn article) GabrielF 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We wouldn't have a category for this, and a list is no more acceptable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary. FiggyBee 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft what? Is anyone really going to come to wikipedia and actually try and find a list of fictional characters that regularly wear shorts. --Bobblehead 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. -- The Anome 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Obvious listcruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nomination. Perhaps Speedy by WP:SPEEDY#A1? wtfunkymonkey 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete what possible encyclopedic value could this have? TSO1D 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - and I have to assume the defender above is kidding . . . i hope . . . ---Dmz5 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly positive it was a troll. WarpstarRider 04:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any reason this should be here. Somitho 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. Hope there are no such lists such as List of fictional characters that regularly wear slippers. Ter e nc e Ong 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep above debate archived somewhere for posterity. Koweja 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT#IINFO and because I hate freedom... apparently. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really wish that "You're censoring me!" wasn't something I had seen before. That's what I get for doing DRV a lot. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you've got to admit the whole "I have a film about a user that I can't prove and they won't admit to" is a relatively unique angle. Koweja 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously per all above. And the commentary from the author of this article smells like WP:POINT violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because IslaySolomon doesn't wear shorts, and Jimmy Wales is not pictured in Wikipedia in shorts either. SkierRMH,08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -LtNOWIS 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly the most bizarre example of listcruft I can recall. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good freakin' Lord. Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the kid an F for writing a college essay on cartoon characters who wear shorts and for citing such a stupid article. Wavy G 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utter rubbish with no encyclopaedic content or purpose. Doc Tropics 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vapid. Chuchunezumi 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I knew that the educational system was in terminal decay, but to depend for a grade on whether you can prove that Charlie Brown wears shorts? Oh, brother!!--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari socolow[edit]

Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. Contested prod. MER-C 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Tevildo 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming no sources found, I can't find any. I need to make a userspace template for that so I can use it instead of having to type that up on half the AfDs I see. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough. Somitho 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Ter e nc e Ong 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence found from WP:RS that this person meets WP:BIO, looks like a non-notable C-level individual from a company which likely does not meet WP:CORP, and likely a WP:COI issue given that the creator of this article is User:Absocolow. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO big time. SkierRMH,08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unreferenced material should be removed anyway. Chuchunezumi 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and might well have qualified for {{db-spam}}, which is what I would have used.--Anthony.bradbury 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Atlantis Hawk 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Slp1 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable EnabledDanger 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regina (singer)[edit]

Article appears to be a largely fictional copy of the Regina Richards article Shas 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Regina Richards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FiggyBee (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- ~~Damn that bot is fast... FiggyBee 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a useful search term for a redirect. MER-C 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~There is a list which links to it, which is presumably why it got created at this title. FiggyBee 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Okay, looks like someone changed the list. Delete. FiggyBee 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no redirect. SkierRMH,08:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no redirect as above Lethaniol 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable EnabledDanger 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, serious NPOV and verifiability issues. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proven conspiracies[edit]

Inherently POV listcruft. The inclusion criteria for this article are vague, and include:

"an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law (or have the law unconstitutionally changed) at some time in the future (civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy); conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory; or actions undertaken in secret (and outside public legislative processes) to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.

Any list aiming to include any instance where two individuals conspire to break the law is going to be enormous and unmaintainable. It is hard to imagine such a list having any kind of encyclopedic value. Also, I feel that the list was created to provide some support for conspiracy theorists. Finally, the examples given in the list are very POV as an aggregate, because they come almost entirely from the US and reflect very badly on that country. GabrielF 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT MESSAGE This AfD is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, with the comment "inherently POV listcruft". User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is a list of articles several wikiusers want to delete, what User:Striver calls a "vote soliciting board". This user page is in violation of several wikipolicies, see Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view", for example. Many of these articles on past AfDs are well reserched and well written, despite User:GabrielF opinion, and recently, the Allegations article had a 4 to 1 "keep" ratio. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is watched by several of the same wikiusers. Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a previous AfD exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. What the heck? Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included? We could rewrite it to use the legal definition... which would make it useless, since the legal definition includes people in getaway cars. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream consensus "proves" it, scholarly sources proves it. Just as most anything. We do not decide, we source, remember that part`? Even if the list would confine itself to the legal meaning, it would still be very encyclopedic. All list imply notability, and you know that, List of persons do not include me. --Striver 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'List of people' is defined as 'lists of people within Wikipedia', so the person in question has to have an article and has to be notable. A list of events where two people 'conspired to break the law' is going to be huge - two burglars agree to burgle a house and it qualifies! Hut 8.5 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving double standards? Of course is this list subject to notability, has anyone implied otherwise? Lets be seirous, no straw mans, please!--Striver 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft, original research, list has many items that are not conspiracy theories and items that are not proven. Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory? wtfunkymonkey 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which items are not proven? Your comment is rather vague. Maybe wikieditors should clean up the article. I will do this if the article survives AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this is OR listcruft with inherent POV. TSO1D 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really pathetic. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... You just commented above... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting that all that is needed to make the list is "an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law..." and yet 19 natural persons hijacking four planes doesn't make the cut. Pjbflynn 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then add it, please. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It of course needs to be re-written, but it does have a place. This is of course an encyclopedia. Somitho 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place. Maybe you should try to use more arguments than "This is an encyclopedia"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who need to show why this is not encyclopedic, and you have done nothing of the kind. --Striver 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it's inherently POV, because someone has to make the judgement on what is necessary to be considered proven. You have just said "It's not POV/unencyclopedic/too large/whatever!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is poorly written you want to delete it Amarkov? Doesn't that mean that it should be tagged, instead of deleted then? Pjbflynn never said it was POV/unencyclopedic/too large here, he said it "needs to be re-written" only, and you agreed: "Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place." Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it deleted because it's badly written. I want it deleted because the subject is inherently POV. You don't get to complain about strawmen while making them yourself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "listcruft" is not a criteria for deletion, please remember that this is not a vote. For other lists, see List of United States Presidents by height order. List is not OR, most entires are very well known conspiracies. 19 hijackers? Yes, please add them, i had them in, but somebody must have deleted it. Western Bias on wikipedia? So what more is new? Large list? Large list are great, we do try to build an encyclopedia, remember? See also List of people who have disappeared or why not List of lists. Not one single valid argument for deletion has been presented, please do not misuses afd to vent personal views or as a place to raise editorial issues. --Striver 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Inherently POV" isn't a valid reason for deletion? I'd love to see what you want, if incompatability with a Foundation-level policy isn't good enough for you. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"inherintly POV"? Who's point of view? I hate emotional arguments, explain to me who's point of view we are talking about. --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov did not answer. :( The criteria for deletion, the suggested criteria, is that people attempt to fix the article before putting the article up for deletion, has Amarkov attempted to fix this article before it was put up for deletion, has any of these users worked on the wikipage before they decided to delete it? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR: "Articles may not contain...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." Deciding which "conspiracies" have been "proven" (or if they were indeed conspiracies in the first place) is inherently POV. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list is not a "synthesis of published arguments", and you know that. Further, what "position" is this list "advancing"? --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that it is hard to prove a conspiracy? If that is your argument, then you claim that 19 hijackers did not conspire? That Brutus did not conspire to kill Cesar? Are you stating that conspiracies do not occur, or that it is impossible to prove that they had occurred? If your are simply concerned about individual entires in the list, then that would be an editorial issue and most definitely not a ground for deletion.--Striver 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are trying to initiate a discussion about what is or is not a "conspiracy" kind of proves my point. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to initiate a discussion, those a rhetorical questions to show that there is obviously proven conspiracies, and that it is perfectly encyclopedic to list them. Nobody disputes that the things i listed are proven conspiracies, add Watergate to that short list. Are you disputing that they are proven conspiracies? Is anybody? --Striver 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is commonly accepted that..." and "You can't seriously dispute that..." ARE NOT foundations for an encyclopaedia article. That notwithstanding, the nom's indiscriminate list argument is perfectly valid and more than enough reason for deletion on its own. We are now firmly in WP:POINT territory and I will not be contributing any further to this discussion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly accepetade facts are the very basis of encycplopedic article, see Sun and Air for example. And regarding indiscriminate, List of people (including List of people with disabilities) voids your argument. --Striver 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This afd is on a vote soliciting board, with a "tip" on how to vote --Striver 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cute, Striver. Perhaps you've forgotten [6]? And by the way, there's a difference between offering an opinion and telling people how to vote. GabrielF 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your link just proved my case. --Striver 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Striver [7], care to hassle someone else instead>? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the "The conspiracy to delete the List of proven conspiracies around the Christmas season" should be added to List of proven conspiracies. ;) I'll sleep on this before I decide to vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Umeboshi 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV; the self-styled definition of "proven conspiracy" is a mark of OR. A category, on the other hand, based on a bright-line criterion like Category:Persons convicted of conspiracy based on actual criminal convictions might be useful. --MCB 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the content, this looks very much like soapboxing. Federal reserve act my arse. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JZG, like Tom, in the original AfD you voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. I agree that the criteria for inclusion is very vague, and citing Wikitionary to verify hardly helps. This list could never be complete, and it does not even include the 9/11 attacks. Hut 8.5 11:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, in the original AfD you also voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, soapboxing, irrelevant and if every person convicted of conspiracy would have a single line it would end up being gigantic. Alf photoman 13:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added 911, somebody removed it. That is an editorial issue. Inclusion is not vague, it is very specific and it is intended to be broad, broader than simply the legal act to include other notable conspiracies that are not necessarily illegal. The list ending up being big is not a problem, it has been up for a long time and has not ballooned. And the reason is simple, we only include notable people. I mean, just look at List of people, that is most definitely a list that is potentially bigger than a list of people who have had notable conspiracies. --Striver 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vague? The criteria are being a proven conspiracy. What's considered a conspiracy? Blah blah blah blah people blah blah lots of people blah blah Nixon. When is something considered proven? When it's considered proven. So, we have a bloated definition which as a result makes no sense, and another circular definition. That's about as vague as you can get, short of "The things which are in it". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conspiracy when two or more people communicate in secret. It is proven when no notable scholar doubts that it factually happened. We have several articles that are and will always be much larger than this, i have already pointed to list of people, that includes ALL people, not only those who conspired. Further, this list does not even include all those who conspired, only the conspiracy, for example, instead of 19 hijackers and their financers and OBL, we only have one, the 911 entry (or had, till somebody removed it). Does that answer all your questions? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a scholar can become notable simply because they do disagree with a widely-accepted conspiracy theory. And I doubt more than like three of the ones listed have unanimous scolarly agreement. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per striver, no valid argument for deletion.--Sa.vakilian 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh, why does nobody think they have to say why the arguments are invalid? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said it, "per striver". Why does not a bunch of the "delete" people just sign, as if this was a vote? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Agreeing with them doesn't mean I'm forced to like it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need of a court conviction to prove a conspiracy, no court convicted Brutus, no court convicted the 1953 Operation Ajax, but they are admitted and proven still. And in either case, that is an editorial issue regarding what to include and not a ground for deleting. --Striver 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example are the Secret CIA Prisons, they are now considered factual by all parties, and i think they are admitted, but there is no conviction. --Striver 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inherently POV Original research, non-encyclopaedic list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very non-encyclopedic. Some of the conspiracies quoted are beyond argument (e.g. Julius Caesar), some are unroven, and some are purely speculative. And the list is not, and can never be, even remotely inclusive. Therefore not useful.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just stated that there are some "beyond argument". This is a list of them. Those who do not belong there are argumented, thus "not proven" and obviously not in the scope of the list. You can't say we should not have list of people since there is other types of animals (dogs, giraffes, fish...), you can't say we can't have a list of proven conspiracies since some are unproven. --Striver 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I think that many of the arguments for keeping it very much establish why it should be deleted.--Dmz5 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's all well and good to put that tag at the top saying that the list will "never" be complete to WP standards (a tag which I have problems with anyway), but really, are we going to open up court records and add to this list every person ever convicted on a charge that involved the word "conspiracy"? --Dmz5 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to the hospital to add every newborn to List of persons? C'mon, why do you say things like that? --Striver 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly and thoroughly putting forth a misunderstanding of List of persons, it is there to organize all the people in wikipedia, and on its face is patently not meant to be a list of every human being. This conspiracies list, however, is quite open to that kind of "abuse". --Dmz5 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument, nobody has argued that we need to fill this with non-notable events. Try, and see how it will be deleted in no-time. I find it objectionable that you are muddying the waters of this afd by stating that this list is not subject to one of wikipedias most heavily referenced guidlines, WP:N, when NOBODY has argued so. Please stop doing that. --Striver 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A highly encyclopedic topic, and some of the entries are generally accepted by historians as "proven conspiracies," such as the assassinations of Caesar and Lincoln, and the Gunpowder plot. It has some of less general acceptance, and it is proper to demand references besides other Wikipedia articles. Each conspiracy should have references to reliable sources. That is a matter for editing, not for deletion of the article. Just because there are conspiracy hoaxes does not mean that there never were any actual conspiracies, and a listing of them is interesting and useful. Edison 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inherently POV article. We have to start getting rid of all "opinion" articles on Wikipedia, and just stick to the facts WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article can never be anything more than someone's opinion about whether something is or isn't a conspiracy, and then, whether or not it was "proven". That's ridiculous. Morton devonshire 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the watergate was not a conpiracy, never happened? 9/11 was not a conpiracy, never happened?--Striver 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Watergate and 9/11 were legal conspiracies. This article thorougly confuses legal conspiracies and conspiracy theories. The editors of an encyclopedia must be able to understand the concept of homonyms and not create a nonsensical mess by confusing concepts that sound similar due to a linguistic accident. Weregerbil 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are stating the the article is merited, there is a real list of conspiracies, but that some who should not be in the list have crept in and that the headline needs editing? None of that is arguments for deleting, that is all editorial issues. I refer you to the title, "List of proven conspiracies". If you disagree with the def inion off "conspiracy" as viewed by some editors, why are you dragging the entire list into afd? --Striver 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the improvements that have been suggested to the article (see talk) what would remain is a useless mess. The talk page also shows the desire (yours at least) to continue keeping and even expanding the homonym confusion. And please don't put words into other peoples' mouths, you rarely guess correctly what they are saying when you do that. It doesn't makes others look like they agree with you; it only makes you look like you are unable to understand what others say. Weregerbil 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons: (1) Inherently POV. The first sentence: "This is a list OR INDEX of conspiracies considered proven to have existed or officially covered-up (and or later discovered) with or without newer evidence." Considered? By whom? The editors? Uncited sources? Putting an article on this list inherently pushes a POV on a question which is contested in virtually every imaginable example. (2) A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something. A "conspiracy" cannot be proven, however. Perhaps "List of Events Related to Proven Allegations of Conspiracy" would be correctly framed, but that title makes clear exactly how much value a list of this sort has. --Colindownes 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First off, the fact that that the word "proven" is in the title and yet there are so few references raises concerns about the reliability of the article. But more importantly, the article is simply not a workable idea. Either it has to include all proven conspiracies, which would be unmanageable, or it must be selective, which would be inherently POV. Heimstern Läufer 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article that is based on confusing two homonyms, legal conspiracy and conspiracy theory, and then attempting to push conspiracy POV based on that confusion. No more useful than an article Cats are small furry animals that are yellow and used in construction work — confusing cats and other cats. Weregerbil 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there are a number of people on the list who were convicted of pedestrian things like securities fraud and insider trading who were charged with "conspiracy" in some form or another, but this is not the same thing as the "conspiracy" surrounding the 9/11 hijackers or, further afield, the "conspiracies" surrounding the CIA killing of world leaders, assassinations of US presidents, etc etc.--Dmz5 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that some things are not notable. So? Since when is that a argument to delete a list? C'mon! --Striver 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and add plenty of sources please. Many of the topics included in this index are not disputed. --Howrealisreal 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Edison. Really needs cleanup, not deletion. As Morton Devonshire and Weregerbil note, there are may be issues with the definitions. Currently has major POV-by-undue-weight issues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What article do you advocate keeping? List of crimes planned and/or committed by two or more people (legal conspiracy; is that useful? Would List of crimes be better?), List of things that were once considered conspiracy theories but are now considered to have happened (conspiracy theory conspiracy; empty article?), List of known events of two or more people working in secret to obtain some goal (as the article is currently defined; really?? Every time you say something to a friend without publishing the discussion fits the current definition. Every business deal that was planned before publishing it fits the current definition. You buying a Christmas present and not immediately telling the recipient fits the current definition.) What kind of an article do you want to keep? See also talk on previous attempts to clean up the mess. Weregerbil 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability makes sure that non-notable events are not going to be included, and you very well know that as an expeienced editor, how many false arguments for deletion is going to be given? --Striver 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, I completely appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence in discussing this article, but I would ask you to consider refraining from simply labelling every opposing comment as "false" or "invalid". Some of your comments are bordering on accusations of bad faith.--Dmz5 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - conpsiracies exist, and can be documented from reliable sources. One of the most glaring examples of modern times would be Watergate. The current article is deficient in quality, but the subject is appropriate material for Wikipedia. -- Whpq 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe that the list has been poorly maintained. I had to go into and make links to the articles, or sections of articles, that the elements in the list referred to. I believe that the argument "...include any instance..." fails as only notable instances would be included. As it stands now, there are approximately 46 entries on the list. I don't believe that this is a large or unmaintainable number. I have personally edited and looked at ~30% of the entries, and had to link most of those to their respective articles. Generally, within the parent articles, the event on the list is undisputed (a.k.a. proven or generally accepted). There are a few exceptions. The Lincoln Assassination is currently unsourced. The Federal Reserve Act is highly disputed in its article (see also Federal Reserve System, esp. this diff where it is clearly disputed). The Video Poker section doesn't reference an article at all, and should be excluded from the list. Actually, any element of the list that doesn't refer to an existing article should be removed.

As to the question of "Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included?", this answer is partially discussed above. If the topic is not generally disputed in the main article it refers to, that should qualify for inclusion in the list. General dispute should automatically categorize the topic back into conspiracy theory, not conspiracy (proven, accepted, or undisputed), thereby disqualifying it from inclusion to this list.
As to this argument here, "Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory?", I absolutely agree, and that is the purpose of this list. It puzzles me that such insight sits behind a vote for deletion.
Another argument in this discussion is, "A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something." These sentences seem to contradict themselves. They seem to imply that one a "conspiracy theory" is proven, we "dare not call it a conspiracy". Perhaps the common vernacular sublimely precludes such grammatical correctness. Also, we need not worry whether or not a conspiracy can be proven. Doing so would technically be original research.
The argument "Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis" may be closer to valid. Since there is not a category setup for this, it is inherently difficult to peruse the mass of articles in wikipedia for qualifying entries to the list. I would propose that the selectiveness of the list, currently, is the result of the difficulty and time involved in scouring the whole of wikipedia to find items to include. This effort is further impeded by my above argument to the "dare not call it a conspiracy" response, that seems to remove the "conspiracy" classification from those entities, preferring to call them plots, scandals, cabals, operations, etc. We must remember that bias, and POV are not always very clear cut, and are not always to be confused with soapboxing. Indeed, a television newscast has a fundamental bias that cannot be avoided. This fundamental bias is to consider what news is newsworthy enough to be reported in the limited timespan that they have to report the news in. This natural bias can be more clearly seen on a local TV station's broadcast, rather than a 24hr cable news channel's production. I would go so far as to say that wikipedia's natural bias is a reflection of the accumulation of fundamental bias in the media. I would like to emphasize that this is not always a conscious bias, just a product of "the way things work."
As to the name of the list, I personally don't prefer "proven" conspiracies. I would be more inclined to agree with either the term "undisputed", "accepted", "actual", or some reasonable combination like "generally accepted" or "actual undisputed" would be OK.
As for the argument that the list is based of confusing two homonyms, I would first point out that the two homonyms referred to were "legal conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". As I have noted above, that which is theory should not be included on the list. That which is on the list and is still disputed as theory in the article that entry refers to should be removed. The homonym argument would probably hold more weight if it tried to make a distinction between general conspiracy and legal conspiracy. So, I'll take up that argument too. It should be noted that legal definitions are more watertight and restictive than the common vernacular definition. As far as I know the only definitions that are meant to be more watertight that a legal definition is a mathematical definition. I believe that the unnecessary constriction of the list to fix the more narrow definition of legal conspiracy to be inappropriate for this list, although it would be appropriate for a sublist.
The next argument, is one I'm slightly closer to agreeing with. And that is the argument of, vague inclusion parameters. I would like to direct your attention to Candy bar. Please note that Reese Peanut Butter Cups is on that list. Is it really a candy bar? For POV inclusion in a list, take a look at this list .

I do think that this article could use a lot of work. There obviously a couple items that don't belong. I feel that the only things that should be on the list should be articles in wikipedia. This means either their own article, or a section of a larger article that the item on the list brings attention to. The items should also be undisputed or generally accepted on those main articles. I think that this is merely an editing problem and does not warrant deletion of the list. Umeboshi 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There is still hope out there! I'm glad to see a real effort to see the issues. --Striver 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to vote the other night, when I left the joking comment above. After some thought, I felt it would be better to put forward an argument that more clearly refuted the deletion claims, rather than just a quick "keep it" comment. I was only halfway (maybe 3/4) done when I realized that the darned thing was getting too long! Umeboshi 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the article is missing the Cain vs. Abel conspiracy and the massive cover-up that followed the murder. --Dual Freq 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who conspired? --Striver 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cain, the Illuminati, Free masons, the usual suspects. --Dual Freq 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some say Cain's wife was in on it too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please try to be serious, this is an afd. --Striver 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not in the mood to be serious, you may want to look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Brasi. After that, you can come back when you're ready for a real discussion. And to think I just spent the last 30 minutes looking around to find a wikipedia policy on citing the bible as historic fact, to try and engage this thread seriously. Anyway the link should provide a good chuckle so you can get it out of you system. Umeboshi 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty hard to take a 23k list spanning from the first century BC to present yet predominantly including only examples of "American Imperialism".(using wording from the list) Come on, the article lists Jack Abramoff and Enron, but does not list the Conspiracy to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Any coup or overthrow of any government will have an associated conspiracy, none of those are listed except the ones that can be blamed on the US. The list has no historical context and has an impossibly wide inclusion criteria. --Dual Freq 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty interesting. In my high school history class, we learned about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. This was presented as a "lone assassin" acting under the pressure in an increasing environment of nationalism over many European states. We never went such detail over the assassination itself. The notion that this was a conspiracy seems both well supported in the article and undisputed. You are encouraged to add it to the list. Umeboshi 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per above. I think this article needs to be rewritten, but has potential. How many of us here have worked to improve this article? I know I haven't, have you? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, what is with all the articles based soley on opinions, further the PoV angle of the article cannot be avoided and worst, this is most likely going to turn into a dumping group of things people "think were proven." We should avoid entire articles based on editors opinions. The worst part is its clearly meant to make the US look bad, as Dual Freq pointed out the article contains mainly conspiracies involving the US, showing the bias of it. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I found this AfD through Travb's contribution list. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved above) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not an implication that there is a conspiracy afoot to delete this list of conspiracies.--Dmz5 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that mean we can add it to the list of conspiracies, however not this list of proven ones? Travb please try to assume good faith, its quite sad when you start maknig accusations. Oddly I do nto see you giving a history in other AfD's involving deletion noticeboards. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote was factually accurate. Gentlemen, WP:AGF and please do not read anything more into my posting. Have a great day. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. Beit Or 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOV issues. As others have pointed out, the list is heavily biased towards post-World War Two U.S. history. Major conspiracies and trivial ones are lumped in together. There is also a distinct lack of references. --Folantin 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GabrielF--MONGO 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mikeeilbache r 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have noticed that shortly after I made my vote above, a couple of users who voted for deletion have been doing many edits to the article. These have been generally constructive edits. Much of the removals are ones that I would've done anyway, so they have been saving me the trouble of doing so. There are only a couple (maybe three) removals that I would disagree with, but for the most part their work seems right in tune with what I think should be done. There has been a decent bit of removal of text that didn't belong in the items, but the proper parts of those items remained. I can agree completely with those particular edits. To me, this seems to suggest that there has been a place for this list on wikipedia and that the real problems with it could be fixed by editing. I would like to spend the rest of this comment proposing better guidlines for determining what should be on the list.

An item on the list implies that there is an article about this item, or a section in an article about this item. i => (article(i) or article#section(i))

This requirement helps keep both notability in the list and original research off of it.

Citations, references and external links are strongly discouraged from being on the list, including embeddedHTML links.

Those types of things should already be present in the main articles referred to by the list items, so there is no need for them on the list.

Summaries on the list should follow, as closely as possible, the summary of the corresponding article. If the element on the list refers to a section in the article, the summary of that element should be an encyclopaedic summary of that section, or the conspiracy part of that section.

This guidline will help keep soapboxing and original research out of the summaries in the list.
It is obvious that this will be a bigger problem for the elements of the list that refer to a section of an article. In this case, it may be a good idea if the primary editors of the article in question approve or actually create those particular summaries.
I think that many of the summaries could follow this pattern:

main article: bold title ... rest of summary
list item: [[link to article|bold title]] ... rest of summary
It would be nice if a template could be made to help automate this.

Having such a template would be an very valuable tool that could be used to protect from soapboxing or original research attacks.
A potential side effect is that it might encourage attacks on the summaries of the respective articles.

Qualifications for inclusion of an article or article section

This is probably the most contentious part of the problem.

1. Conspiracy theories are not allowed on the list.

This requirement should be self explanatory, as they would invalidate the list.

1. The conspiracy should not be disputed in the main article.

A good example of this the the conspiracy theory section of the Federal Reserve System. It is clearly not stated that there was a conspiracy behind the formation of the Fed. It is also pretty clearly disputed in the article by being under the heading of conspiracy theory.
This guidline not be construed as an excuse to start disputing it in the article, merely because it got included into the list.

1. 1. 1. By this I mean: unpopular item gets put on list, meeting guidelines
    2. Editors that oppose its addition on the list start dispute in main article.
    3. List item now becomes disputed according to these guidelines.
    4. Item is subsequently removed from the list.
    5. Main editors of article finally settle dispute, and article forms back into its former state (or a state that would still allow for inclusion here).
    6. Main editors of article may not know what originally caused dispute, so they don't place item on list.
    7. Editor that added item to list doesn't keep track of what is going on because they have better things to do, or many months pass while item is in dispute in main article.
    8. unpopular item is now successfully removed from list. If it comes back, loop again.

This guideline is also not to be construed to keep genuine disputes about the validity of information in the article from occuring.

1. If there is dispute in the article over the conspiracy, the conspiracy must be more generally accepted over the dispute.

By this, I am referring to the subjects in the article, and not the editors of the article. I'm having a hard time wording this succintly, so ask me later for clarification, if necessary.

1. Lack of use of the word "conspiracy" should not preclude inclusion into the list.

Plots, plans, and operations that match the description should be included.

This includes intelligence operations and military campaigns where it is clear there was a plan shared among "allies" but not "enemies".
When, or if, the list starts getting too big because of these inclusions, it would be time to start categorizing and breaking off into sublists. I still think that this is manageable.

1. Conspiracy or plan which is undisputed, or generally accepted, yet not carried out should not preclude inclusion.

There is still more particulars that should be discussed, but I think this is a pretty good set of guidelines to start with. I think that with this comment and set of guidelines, I have successfully taken care of most of the arguments raised here. For the argument of what constitutes a conspiracy, as I noted above, this will be the argument that cannot be easily solved. Even so, that argument should not be sufficient for the deletion of this list. I do think that the page should be renamed, as proven is a pretty strong term. I think just the simple list of conspiracies is sufficient. Umeboshi 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i was thinking of suggesting list of conspiracies, since many seem to object to the word "proven". --Striver 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort you're putting into this Umeboshi, but I really think its a lost cause. Take for example, your qualification regarding military operations, this would include every military campaign conducted by two or more allies in the history of the world. (Or any campaign conducted on the soil of a consenting third country, or any peacetime war plan), etc. And how is it that you come to define a conspiracy as an act coordinated between allies? Wouldn't it be equally "conspiratorial" for a team of individuals to plan an invasion? Does it really make sense to call the Peninsular Campaign a conspiracy? The only way I can see to salvage this list is to do something like List of major conspiracy cases and only include cases where people were accused of conspiracy in court, but even then the list is enormous and completely unfocused as you are combining say, Enron, with a case where a guy shoots someone and then another guy helps him cover it up (conspiracy after the fact). I would accept something like List of convictions under the RICO act, but clearly legal convictions are not the point of this list. Clearly, this list is about showing that historically, massive governmental or corporate conspiracies have happened in order to lend weight to the nutty conspiracy theories that Striver loves for one reason or another. That's POV pushing and its unacceptable. GabrielF 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in advocating the inclusion of military campaigns was specifically to keep away from pushing POV. I will agree that it would make the list cumbersome. Personally, I would prefer to keep most them out of the list, but I would not want to be accused of pushing POV. It may be a better idea to resurrect the Conspiracy article and make it a real article that explains how military campaigns, plans and operations could be considered conspiracy and preclude their mention from the list. The article could then direct the reader to the appropriate categories and lists. One can hardly doubt that the Attack on Pearl Harbor or Operation Overlord were conspiracies, at minimum from the viewpoint of people who plan the suprise attack. The conspiracy article at the moment is nothing more than a disambiguation page. It used to a little better, it wasn't great but it was a decent stub. It seems what happened is that early on, it detailed criminal conspiracy, got a legal template, then split from the main article. I'm not disagreeing with the split, but after that it went downhill to nothing more than a definition and some links to other articles. When you take a look at the other articles like Conspiracy (crime) or Conspiracy (civil) there are only a couple of examples of specific cases mentioned in each article, and there is no direction to a list of events which would fall into those categories. The Conspiracy (political) article is even more pathetic, and could probably be merged into a good Conspiracy article. I do understand that the concept of conspiracy is a vague concept covering a lot of territory. I also understand that it is a human construct. I invite you to take a look at other vague, but simple, concepts that cover a lot of territory and have better articles:

These are all vague (to various degrees) human constructs that seem to require a larger explanation than just a quick definition and pointers to disambiguation links. Rather they try to discuss the topic with a small amount of detail without delving into a whole systematic exposition. While I agree that the conspiracy list seems to focus on massive government and coporate conspiracies, I don't believe that deleting the list is the appropriate answer to that focus. I have tried to create some guidlines to remove that particular focus and stay true to the general meaning of conspiracy. While the list might give a slight amount of weight some of the conspiracy theories out there, I would like to point out that deletion of the list might actually give more weight to them. This might seem counter-intuitive at first. If it can be shown that there is a history of shoving actual conspiracy in the corner, or displaying its vigorous dismissal, and if it can be shown that conspiracy theory is actively advanced in means and methods that help ridicule it, then it becomes much easier to add weight to the conspiracist view of events. A good list may help support the idea that conspiracy, while pervasive in the course of history, is full of mundane unconnected events, rather than a "topdown plan guided by the elite for generations to enslave humanity." The deletion of the list could be seen in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists as evidence that there are those that are too fearful of the list because it would clearly reveal such a plan. Personally, I doubt that any list of events in the wikipedia, conspiracy or otherwise, would ever reveal such a "master plan", as there is too much disconnect between notable events. It's part of the reason I use other methods in my own personal research on the topic. Now as far as being a lost cause, I would like to direct you to look at Tom Harrison's remarks on last years afd. He discusses the motivation that inspired it in the first place and warns that removing it would just have the effect of it popping up again in another form. I'll try to draw an analogy for you. Close by, in a small town, young teenagers used to meet up on Friday and Saturday nights in a parking lot on the edge of town. This had been the tradition for many years. One day, the chief of police got the "bright idea" to stop this, possibly because it made the town look bad or something. The result of this is that the teens just found other places to meet up, some of them outside the city limits. This made it more difficult for the police to keep their eye on the kids and keep them out of trouble. I think that policy has since changed and the old tradition is in full swing again, but I haven't been back to verify that in a while. Please don't take this as some sort of vague threat from me to force the list to pop up again if it's deleted. I'm not interested in causing trouble or disrupting the process of making a better encyclopedia. I'm just trying to impart some words of wisdom, "build a field and set the boundaries" and things will be easier to maintain in the long run. I am, however, interested in building a better Conspiracy article, as I described above. I may seek to do that later once I come up with a good plan to make it viable. Umeboshi 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry the mixture of bullets and numbers don't look very good but I didn't know what else to do. Umeboshi 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - big POV magnet with no practical value. --MarsRover 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - inherently POV. The definition of a conspiracy is that it's almost impossible to prove that it really was a conspiracy. How do you know that there isn't a fully-fledged real Deletionist Cabal that holds closed meetings over articles like this on Skype or something? You just can't prove it either way. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When theoretically completed, this list will be so large as to be unmanageable and would fail in its purpose as a useful linking/navigation tool. The selection criteria are far too broad to keep the number of entries to a reasonable level. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how a list of notble conspiracies is to big for wikipedia, while a List of notable persons is not? --Striver 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said before, can you please stop using Lists of people as an argument for keeping the article? It is obviously not meant to be an indiscriminate list of the 110 billion people who have ever lived, whereas this list includes an enormous variety of things that fit the vague category of 'conspiracy'. Hut 8.5 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have still not understood why list of people is supposed to be be subjected to the notability guidline, while this is not. Could you explain to me this double standard? What makes this article not subjected to notability standards? --Striver 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, List of people is a kind of meta article, its not a list of all the people in the universe, its a list of biographical wikipedia articles intended as a convenience to help users find information in a 1.5+ million article encyclopedia. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case. GabrielF 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i keep telling that! The argument "this will be to big" is voided by the simple fact that we already have a list sooo big that it has turned into a list OF lists. --Striver 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename/merge with a proper title. This is undoubtedly encyclopedic, and I doubt even the most hardcore deletionist can disagree with that. The problem is that this needs to be flushed out a bit, and needs to be renamed to something more neutral and useful. "Proven conspiracies" sounds rather silly, but a list that links people to the gunpowder plot or the like is quite useful and easy to source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it would be best to limit the list to conspiracies to overthrow states. (Directly overthrow, anyway, so we don't have people arguing, e.g., that there was a conspiracy by FDR to let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, go to war with Japan, and thus overthrow the Japanese state.) Focusing on that category strikes me as reasonably encyclopedic; but I don't think there's sufficient commonality between the Catilinian conspiracy, the Black Sox scandal, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (how is this a "conspiracy", BTW?) and DRAM price fixing to create any sort of meaningful article or list, per GabrielF's original remarks. Choess 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a List of coups d'état and coup attempts. It isn't perfect, but it is both far more extensive and less POV than this article. GabrielF 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*A suggestion I think the only way you could save this list and stop it from expanding uncontrollably is to include only historical events generally known by the term "conspiracy" or "plot" (thus avoiding most POV issues), e.g. the Catiline conspiracy, the Pisonian conspiracy, the Cato Street conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, the Gunpowder plot, the Rye House plot etc.. --Folantin 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that quite a few would say that there wasn't much of Catilinarian conspiracy and that Cicero stitched Catiline up! Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this list is unsalvageable. Especially if, as it now seems, every clandestine military alliance is going to be added to it. --Folantin 10:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a magnet for POV pushers.--Jersey Devil 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So's George W. Bush. How is that a deletion reason? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proven conspiracies? Proven by whom? Some Wiki editor who decided these items belong in the article. This article will nver get any better, and never be anything but somebodys opinion.EnabledDanger 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is absurd compilation of absolutely unrelated events with a dubious label plastered on them. It is, however, a perfect example of structural weakness of Wikipedia - failure to deal with content not based on anything outside Wikipedia (original research is misnomer, 'reserarch' is well defined activity). Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user:Striver. ThanksRaveenS 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloody Hell, what a palaver about such a silly `article'. Rosenkreuz 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way this article could be made useful and interesting is if WP:NPOV and WP:V were both rescinded. There are two real questions here. The first is "conspiracies." We are fooling ourselves if we defend this article under the pretense that "conspiracy," as used here, can be defined neutrally. If a conspiracy, for the purpose of this article, was defined neutrally, it could theoretically contain all coordinated human activity in all of history, with the only criteria for entry being the old saws "notability" and "significance." Meanwhile, the convenience of the list format is that it allows for an absolute definition of an event in precisely the same way an article's title does: the article title "Boston Massacre" states, conclusively, that the event in question was a massacre, no matter how much of the article itself is devoted to criticism of this view or if the article's description itself is more nuanced. The reality is that the structual flaw (intentional or not) of this list is that it inevitably uses the common understanding of conspiracy as a nefarious plot to do harm or evil to undermine WP:NPOV by allowing an editor to state CONCLUSIVELY and without in-article criticism that an act or event is an act of violence or other deliberate harm. The second question is over the issue of 'proof.' The same analysis applies: the list enables an editor to make a conclusive claim as to whether or not an act was undertaken by a conspiracy or that a group was conspiratorial. By the nature of the list, debate over the substance of this claim must be made on the talk page of the list rather than on the article page, where the complexity of opinions on the question would be made apperant to the end-user. The assumption that the end-user will appreciate the complexity of the issue upon viewing the main article on the subject is inappropriate. In summary, there is no reason why we should create more circumstances where WP:NPOV must be bent for the sake of brevity or convenience. AlexeiSeptimus 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with very much of what you say. I have put a great deal of thought into this, and tried to find a way to keep POV out of the list. This is problematic due, like you say, to the nature of being able to define conspiracy neutrally. My solution was to keep the list from being able to make that definition in the first place, primarily by only allowing all entries to be articles. For the other issue you raise of proof, I tried to make a way to determine this, not proof but lack of dispute, by forcing compliance that it not be disputed in the main article. This helps keep the editors of the list from determining "proof". The more I keep thinking about this, the more ready I am to get rid of the list. This does not mean I'm ready to dispose of the issue that I feel is important, which is basically categorical navigation. The problem is that there is currently no way to navigate through the many commonly accepted conspiracies that have taken place in history. I would agree that including military campaigns, intelligence operations, assassination plots, and terrorist attacks to the list would make the list very large and unmanageable, keeping them off of the list is equivalent to pushing POV. Even selecting a smaller list of well known and generally accepted conspiracies also serves to help push POV. Umeboshi 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe more I think about it the more I feel that the list should be removed. Categories may be a better approach. The Conspiracy article really needs to be worked on to help explain the concept in greater detail, then direct the reader to the various forms that it occurs in. I can agree that lumping anything that falls under the definition of conspiracy into a "hodgepoged" list is unwieldy. I can't agree with the idea that there is no better way to go about this, and that the problem will just go away with the deletion of the list. The activity I've witnessed in the 911 conspiracy articles seems to confirm this. There are quite a few people who have voted to keep because they felt the information had encyclopaedic value. It may not be the majority, but I don't believe that the are the "wacky fringe" types, and there should exist some solution that would help satisfy this value. Many who have voted for deletion have provided examples of known conspiracy, so there is little doubt that they exist. This means we're not talking about conspiracy theories here, yet conspiracy theories are well categorized. Why is it that conspiracies are not categorized? All it takes is not being disputed as ocurring and not being disputed as a conspiracy. This doesn't seem to be that difficult. Having them all on one list may be a mess, categorizing them by type doesn't seem all that difficult. Why are Category:CIA operations, Category:FBI operations, and Category:NSA operations not split between known and alleged? Does a reader have to browse through every article to determine whether they are known or whether they are alleged? A student doing a paper on a synopsis of intelligence operations would have to sift through the entire category to determine whether the op was real or not. The inertia that exists to keep vague the distinction between real and fairy-tale ultimately does a disservice to the end users of the project and help keep wikipedia from being taken seriously when people want to look stuff up along these lines. I mean it might be great for lining the presidents up by height, or listing every Gundam suit known, but it seems to be really hurting in this area. I don't believe that this is an Impossible Mission, it just seems that no real effort has been put forth to make a solution for it. The ability of some to call spades, spades and ducks, ducks when they recognize a conspiracy theory seems to be inexplicably handicapped when it's time to cross the theory barrier into actuality. Umeboshi 06:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The conclusion by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington to delete was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_22#List of big-bust models and performers.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, listcruft, no reliable sources provided, definition of having big-busts is subjective, not-encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers[edit]

I have no strong feelings about this nom one way or the other, but it has been suggested that it is somehow unfair not to have this article up for deletion when the article List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is. So, this nomination. This article has been nominated twice before, see discussions here and here. Previous discussions seemed to get tainted fairly quickly with accusations of bad faith and other shenanigans, so let's try to keep to a minimum here, OK? My only concern with the article is that it's performer by genre. We've had some consensus emerge recently that "model by magazine" is unacceptable (see discussion of Category: Playgirl and Category: playgirl models here, and the categories for Playboy models, Playboy Cyber Girls, Playboy Coeds of the Week and Playboy NSS models here. This may not be the same sort of issue but since previous discussions devolved so quickly an actual discussion of the article and the performer by genre situation is appropriate. Otto4711 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no good reason to delete this. The list is informative, if incomplete. If anything there should be a cross-referentce to the Playgirl model article (which by the way should also never have been deleted). [[User:JD] Dec. 19 2006]
- ABOVE VOTE APPEARS TO BE FAKED - see edit entry by 136.159.168.221. Is there a better way to mark that sort of thing? --Closeapple 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The fact that some performers are marketed as having large breasts (as opposed to merely having large breasts) is verifiable and vaguely notable. "Playboy Playmates with..." on the other hand should go because it's unnecessarily specific. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely per FiggyBee. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first one and Delete the Playboy one per Figgy. TJ Spyke 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and as unmanageable because there is no objective way to determine exactly what qualifies as having a "big bust." Dpbsmith (talk)
Most magazines and websites (like Score, the biggest magazine that focuses on busty women) usually consider D cup as the minimum size to be considered a big bust. TJ Spyke 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly defined. The lead says it's based not on marketing, but on having DD cups or larger. However, this is totally arbitrary and is based on obviously inflated marketing. It's like having a "list of comfortable cars." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except "comfortable" is not a recognisable category of cars (but "luxury" is), whereas "big-bust" is a recognisable category of porn actress. Maybe we need a better way of determining who does and doesn't qualify for the list, but the fact that the boundaries are fuzzy doesn't mean the category is meaningless. FiggyBee 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car categories are generally applied by third parties or by reputable manufacturers, at least. This list is only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves, and the article itself says such things are regularly inflated. A better analogy would be List of big dick porn stars -- we could put a size requirement on such a thing, but it still comes down basing a list on material known to be unreliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves": there are women on this list who, undeniably, have very large breasts. Also, since what makes this list notable is the popularity of big-tit porn, the fact that any given model claims to have large breasts is significant (and may even be a valid criterion for inclusion on the list!). FiggyBee 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every performer/model can be included with this. See Dolly Parton Somitho 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just edited the page and saw there is a hidden comment for editors, clarifying the criteria for inclusion in the list;

Please note: This should only include women who appear in big-bust videos or magazines 
(not all of this is porn), not just women who happen to have large breasts (i.e., Pamela
Anderson, Dolly Parton, etc.).

FiggyBee 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet pamela anderson is a performer known for her big breasts. Why is she listed as excluded? As for going by what porn stars have to say, we don't have such things as abstract undeniable facts around here, we require claims to be cited to reputable sources. Someone's promotional bio is not a reputable source for things that are often puffery, nor are our own observations of photographs. Such a thing would be considered original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela is not included because this is a list of peformers known for appearing in a particular subgenre of pornography, rather than known for having big boobs (which again is why what their actual measurements are is irrelevent). They are "big-bust performers", not "performers with big busts".FiggyBee 07:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why do we have the current criteria for inclusion? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FiggyBee and Somitho. Akihabara 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't brought out WP:IAR in a while... if I recall correctly, this is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Keep solely to bring more people to the project. Yes, I'm serious. --- RockMFR 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many people want to find information specifically about big-bust sex-perfomers because this is their natural sexual orientation and their interest. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factual information to people who want to know. And it makes no sense to classify this information into some obscure or general categories that will make it more difficult for people to find the information they want. Nick367 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, "it's useful to some people"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete define big. Do we have a single, unambiguous definition of what size bust is accepted as big? No? Indiscriminate and arbitrary, then. Also, why big bust, not long hair or big feed or someting. Egregious porncruft, begone. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable genre within the porn industry and these women are known for their breasts. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no encyclopedic value in having an article about big tits Alf photoman 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Pure listcruft. As noted by Guy above this one doesn't even attempt to define big. Can I do an article on medium-bust average height models too? MartinDK 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy, where is the definition of what's big and what's not, and per Night Gyr.--John Lake 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though John Lake makes a point that perhaps some criteria should be added (i.e. the models are primarily known for their bust size, or appear frequently in magazines devoted to said fetish). My only concern is that this article is likely to become populated with more and more redlinks as time goes on, as individual articles on these models tend to get AFD'd as these folks don't tend to get the awards necessary to meet WP:PORNBIO's criteria. 23skidoo 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the criterion is there of their being market as busty, and not just o.r. opinions of editors as to how pneumatic they are. Edison 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's a completely silly reason for deletion nomination, and it also just happens to be one of our most popular pages - David Gerard 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the article says "It is fairly common for this category of models and dancers to publish misleading measurements." Also bust sizes change according to fashion. No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Not thrilled about the content, but it seems valid per earlier arguments. — RJH (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Gerard makes a good point. And so does RJHall. I can't see any valid reason to delete this considering it's been through AFD twice, and kept twice. --SunStar Net^talk 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for the list are clearly defined. According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Its popularity-- whether one approves of the subject or not-- is proven by the fact that this list is the 16th most-viewed page on Wikipedia [8]. Wikipedia is not censored. Dekkappai 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep As much as I'm surprised to say it, considered the concept, this list has developed well defined scope. And as long as someone is able to watch the page, I do not see sufficient cause to delete the page.-- danntm ^T _C 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most popular pages on wikipedia. completely agree with Dekkappai --Hexvoodoo 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's probably easier to classify who has modeled large breasts for publication than it is to, for example, determine what city or U.S. state someone is "from" when they lived in multiple cities, yet we have still "People from" categories. Also, the reasoning here doesn't make logical sense: List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is more specific a subject than this article, so it would be a delete consensus on this article that would imply AfD on the other article, not the other way around. Letting AfD-keep advocates from one article drag more general articles into their mess comes close to the "someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly" example in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Closeapple 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the Playmates one, this is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Since many of these performers are famous -specifically- for their bust size, it's significant enough to warrant a list. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information was posted here because people are obviously interested in the material, therefore it becomes valuable knowledge to some and worth keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.126.169 (talk • contribs)
Delete Get real. Who gets to decide whether somebodys bigbusted or not?EnabledDanger 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Exactly, Martin. And Wikipedia, as it is currently set up, will never be a rival to traditional encyclopedias on the traditional subjects-- science, mathematics, history... At best, it will be only an easy starting point for information on these subjects. Articles on these subjects by anonymous, uncredentialed editors is never going to rival writing by experts in their fields. It is exactly subjects like this, which will not be found in traditional encyclopedias, and on which is is nearly impossible to fine unbiased, non-commercial, sourced information which is Wikipedia's strongest point. Articles like this are exactly the kind in which Wikipedia has the advantage over traditional encyclopedias and other reference sources. Dekkappai 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That I agree with. So what I was thinking was this: rather than spend time debating if something is original research, sourced etc. why not just face the facts as you described them above? Debates like the one we are having here are surreal. We are trying to apply academic principles to determine the value of a list of big-bust models. Am I the only one to whom that sounds totally surreal? MartinDK 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Yes, I've also noticed the surrealism that can creep up in these arguments on more than one occasion, but I suppose that's to be expected. I do agree with Wiki's original research/NPOV/sourcing rules. Just because an article is on a non-traditional subject doesn't mean it can't be well-written, sourced, etc. These are valuable policies. I do think that these rules are sometimes applied more strictly-- sometimes absurdly so-- to some subjects than others, depending on the biases of particular editors. But that's another issue. Dekkappai 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I agree that those are important policies. They just aren't very suited for debating a list of big-bust models. And if we agree that this is the kind of articles that Wikipedia does better than anyone else then maybe we should consider the criterias we use when discussing this kind of article or at least to what degree we should apply these policies. MartinDK 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I think what we're getting at here is the difference between form and content. My understanding is that Wikipedia strives to be an encylopedia in form. Its goal is to produce well-written, reasonably unbiased, appropriately sourced articles on a wide variety of subjects, like a traditional encyclopedia. However, when editors seek to delete articles like this on the grounds that they are "unencyclopedic," what they mean is that they are unencyclopedic in content, not necessarily in form. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," means Wikipedia does not seek to imitate the content of a traditional encyclopedia, only its form. So a well-written article on every pop-culture reference in one episode of The Simpsons, or a list of Playboy Playmates whose bra cup is D or above, as long as they are encyclopedic in form, are perfectly appropriate. That's my take on it anyway. Dekkappai 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Thank you. Putting it that way it becomes much more clear to me what is meant by the word encyclopedia around here. I was getting to the point where I was getting frustrated but putting it like you just did it becomes perfectly clear to me. I hope a lot more people than me read your responses to me because it really clarifies things a lot and would make many of these AfD's a lot more to the point. MartinDK 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Thanks to you too, Martin. It's been interesting thinking this thing out. Dekkappai 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep close. Just H 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:FiggyBee 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Figgy. Also, there are several ways to define what "big" means. Having a size D or up, inclusion in big-bust videos/magazines, self-identification as having large breasts, these are all options. All of which can be sourced. Which method should be used is a debate for the talk page. -kotra 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, see WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food metaphors for race[edit]

unsourced, unverifable, similar to the racial terms AFD a few months ago Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)}_{Merry Christmas!} 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR wtfunkymonkey 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, racial slurs have other articles here. Somitho 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This falls on the wrong side of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DICT and is just listcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH,08:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verfiable and interesting. Lovablebeautyme 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Chuchunezumi 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where sourceable to list of ethnic slurs. JDoorjam Talk 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't see anything there sourceable. If there were, i'd agree with you. Just H 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of ORs. Just H 01:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the man said, bunch of OReos.EnabledDanger 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I created this page on the proposition that one ridiculous article is better than ten. Previously we had individual articles for many of these terms. I hope this deletion wouldn't revert us to the previous situation. BTW, for what it's worth, several of these terms are sourced in the pop culture section.--Pharos 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graving[edit]

Nom - neologism; not in dictionaries; no sources. Originally prod'd, but an editor with just one edit (sock puppet?) removed the prod and added more content. Rklawton 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Graving as a word may be similar to slang, but it does describe what many people do as a hobby. Yes it is related to genealogy. I am not sure why this would be considered for deletion, while an advertising page for a porn actress (not even a good one) is allow to stay. Look her up on Wikipedia, she goes by the name 'Nikki Benz' link: [9]. --Scott Buschlen 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dry dock. MER-C 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question what does dry dock have to do with graving?[10] Rklawton 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This. :) And, Redirect per MER-C. Tevildo 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dry dock - I disagree with the proposed redirect. The article is on graving, and MW has three definitions for "graving" - none of which relate to a dry dock (or the subject of the article). Rklawton 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect. Either keep or delete. --- RockMFR 07:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - neologism. No redirect. SkierRMH,08:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - I'm the original submitter of the article, which describes an activity that is valuable for preservation and access of genealogical information. "Graving" is a term used by thousands of "gravers" - people who gather information from cemeteries and make it publicly available online. Just because a term is not in the dictionary doesn't warrant it unworthy as a page in a wiki encyclopedia. Also, the editor with just one edit, mentioned above, is not a sock puppet. {Bubbha 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete neologism. To be fair, I am prejudiced against this kind of word, and would also burn on sight all mentions of terms like "scrapbooking". Guy (Help!) 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Genealogy, the information included is useful and encyclopaedic even if the verb itself is not. Lethaniol 12:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands on 17 December 2006. However, I would hope that the term may be verified in secondary and reliable sources in order to justify a vote for Keep. Some of the information could certainly be transferred to Monumental inscription or the like. Verica Atrebatum 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If the prime objection is the name of the article, how about keeping it but changing the article name to, say, "Cemetery research"? {Bubbha 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
- Reply - original research. Rklawton 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - A description of a real practice carried out by thousands of people is not "original research". {Bubbha 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. Eusebeus 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete What, are Wikipedia users now becoming the English Académie Française, deciding which words may or may not enter the language? DocWilson 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Doc Wilson[reply]
Comment - quite the opposite. We don't do original research here. Therefore, we let the authorities (dictionary editors, in this case) decide what is accepted before we write an article. For example, thousands of skydivers know exactly what a "whuffo" is. You'll find it on Google searches, and it even found its way into a movie (Cutaway), but until Websters or the OED, or some other authority decides it is part of the English language, I don't get to write an article about it. That's how it works here, and I don't mind playing by the rules. Rklawton 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: Your comment conflicts with your other comment about the acceptability of the word "truthiness", which is in no English dictionary at this point. Other articles like "Cryptex" or "Skitching" or "River Trekking" should then be deleted by your standards, but are given a pass. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information about topics (including unusual hobbies, new ones of which are appearing all the time) to the general public, and this necessitates the acceptance of new terms to a reasonable extent. Zero-tolerance always causes more problems than it purports to solve. {Bubbha 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Reply - I see no contradiction regarding expert confirmation. The word "truthiness" has been select as the 2005 word of the year by the American Dialect Society. Here at Wikipedia, the fact that other unworthy articles exist is never a valid reason for keeping yet one more. I would prefer to see the Cryptex article merged with the article about the book. However, I suspect the book article is overly long, and the editors chose to split sections out into separate own articles. If this is the case, then Cryptex would be worthy because it is central to the plot of a notable movie. The skitching article has no sources and should be either fixed or deleted for the reasons you specified. Unlike "graving", River trekking isn't a word, it's a phrase, and it describes an outdoor activity that is well documented. Please read WP:NOT for a more official response to what you think Wikipedia should include (but won't). Rklawton 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply First, Rklawton, I do value your input and I have learned a lot. But I had always thought that the proscription on neologism was to prevent someone from, say, inventing something out of whole cloth and posting an article about it; say, inventing the practice of walking backwards naked with a Sgt. Pepper LP album cover on one's head and coining the word "Whoojness" to describe it. On the contrary, "graving" is something that thousands of people do as a hobby, and is termed such by them. I have no objections to changing the title to something acceptable. You objected to my previous suggestion to do just that by citing another proscription -- original research -- but the simple act of describing a hobby that is actually practiced by a definite community is not "original research"; it's just statement of fact. Yes, I know I don't make the rules, but I would hope that the parameters of the proscription on neologism could be adjusted to be slightly more accommodating to the sharing of useful knowledge. Again, I would be happy to see this article being retained under a more acceptable name. {Bubbha 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep and retitle if needed. Graving has been going on ever since there were graves of saints to venerate during pilgrimages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - genealogy related hobby. - WeniWidiWiki 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am unable to find many examples of this word being used in this context, even for what is admitedly an obscure activity. If anything can be provided to show notability, I will support a keep. - Justin (Authalic) 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As with above, I recommend merging it. Somitho 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a new member of the Wikipedia community who was been lurking here since the site's inception I have to confess that I'm scratching my head as to why this is such a big deal. I have noted COUNTLESS articles on obscure practices on these pages. In fact, I have had learned of the existance of several simply by reading these pages. One such practice, Geocaching, was only brought to my attention this year, but it appears to have been around for awhile and like graving thousands of people are doing it. If you hold true to what you say on your admin page of wanting to help others then I suggest that you give the author and his associates a chance to flesh out the article to meet the site's approval.Cyberlucy1965 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965[reply]
Reply - good points. The AfD process takes 5 days. That should be plenty of time to fix up the article. But it doesn't change the fact that "graving" is a nelogism (see WP:NEO). If there's something about this word that satisfies Wikipedia's neologism guidelines, then this is the place to discuss it. As for Geocaching, unlike "graving" (which has multiple meanings), geocaching has over 4 million Google hits. Rklawton 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So how many of those four million google hits are mulitiple repeats of the same article. Sorry using that doesn't hold water. It's true graving has multiple meanings but it doesn't dismiss that like geocaching that it is hobby that is practiced by thousands of people and, as Mr. Norton kindly pointed out, it is a practice that has been going on for hundreds of years. As others have pointed out here if the issue is the word being neologism then why not let the author and his associates title it something else perhaps a phrase not unlike "river trekking" which was inferred to be appropriate. Cyberlucy1965 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)cyberlucy1965[reply]

Reply - renaming the article might be a good idea. It would avoid the neologism problem. However, it would do nothing to solve the "no original research" problem. At this point, the article reads like an unsourced "how to" guide. Rklawton 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - How does one tell when the five days are up? Countedx58 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - five days from the date of nomination. You can click the "History" tab of this project to see the first edit to this nomination. In this case, five days are up on the 21st. Individual results may vary. Rklawton 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. dcandeto 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it appears that the novice editors who have joined this discussion are being solicited to do so on the find-a-grave website. The first clue was here: [11]. However, this link pretty much says it all: [12]. I would like to encourage all the folks from find-a-grave to read the following: WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:MEAT. I've also posted useful links on your talk pages over the last few days. All of this is aimed at helping you become top quality contributors. I suggest you focus your energies accordingly. The experienced editors are trying their best to show you how things work here. It's all for the best. Rklawton 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've read the Wikidefinition of sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and I'm not here or taking an interest in this article because I'm a member of FAG. I'm here because I have been a supporter of Wikipedia over the years, and I care, like you, about the content. I have an interest in being a contributor here, and whether I opened my account today or two years ago doesn't matter. I agree that you have made some very good points, but I think the fact that this article was nominated for deletion instead of you seeking out the contributor and making these suggestions that you have been making has been the issue. Cyberlucy1965 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I did leave the editors welcome messages complete with "how to" links. If I thought the article might be saved, I would have tagged, prod'd, or fixed it myself. The point here is that I this article can't be saved. A group of internet users have created their own slang to describe their activities, and now they want an article about it. It just won't fly here. Asking new editors to fix their article "or else" and then having to delete it anyway is far more cruel. It's less misleading to simply point out the article's failing points, provide links to help its editors better understand how things work, and proceed to AfD. I only nominated "graving" because I don't think we could salvage it. Rklawton 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This experience has left a very bad taste in the mouths of those of us who are users of and contributors to both Find A Grave and Wikipedia. This is beginning to appear to us as the petty crusade of one person who has ALSO solicited others to support his point of view (a definition of the neologism "meat-puppetry," I believe). I recognize the signatures of everyone who has posted in support of the article, and they are all different people. No "sock-puppetry" going on -- and no "meat-puppetry" either. The original solicitation on Find A Grave was for ways to improve the article, not hammer at the Wikipedia administrators. And then to presume to register on Find A Grave for the sole purpose of instructing us poor benighted amateurs . . . well, the mind boggles. We are NOT just a small group of internet users who have created out own slang. We are people with a common interest in a common pursuit which has its roots in changing attitudes towards death and burial in the 19th-century -- most of whom were doing it long before we had any access to the internet -- who are simply describing what we do in the most simple, elegant terms possible.DocWilson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - you won't find a single instance of me soliciting others to support deleting this article. As for sock/meat puppetry - see also WP:SPA. I just pointed out that the influx of new accounts looked suspicious. We see a lot of that sort of thing in AfD discussions. Rklawton 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible renaming or redirect to "Grave Hunting" Countedx58 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I used Google to search the "Association for Gravestone Studies" website referenced in the "Graving" article (the only external website so referenced in the article) and found zero instances of the word "graving". This word is clearly the product of slang primarily used within the find-a-grave website forums.[13][14] Combined with the special purpose accounts created by find-a-grave users to defend this article, and the fact that these users admit within their discussion forums that they made up this word to describe their group's hobby, and the fact that they haven't been able to produce sources that establish this word as part of this (or any) language, and I think it's clear this article should be deleted. As evidenced both here, in the article's talk page, and in their own discussion forums, I've done my best to guide these editors through the process and provide careful explanations and suggestions. Their inability to resolve WP:NEO or WP:NOR does not reflect on their lack of interest, ability, or desire, but rather on the intractability of the problem. The topic itself, and not simply the article, fails to meet Wikipedia's standards. Rklawton 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I believe that the information provided in the article is worthy as useful information. But this seems to have become a battle between Wikipedia "inclusionists" and "deletionists", and I didn't come here for a battle, but just to share information. The article is now at Wikinfo.org for those interested. I hope the article can continue here in some form or another, but if the powers that be deem otherwise, let it be so. No, I'm not leaving Wikipedia - I will still contribute as always. All the best to everyone here, and no hard feelings. Bubbha 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was trainwreck. It is clear that no consensus will come of this; please nominate articles seperately, where appropriate, so that they may be considered on their own merits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Community Church[edit]

Delete Non-notable church per WP:CHURCH --Адам Райли ^Talk 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following churches which I feel qualify just the same. --Адам Райли ^Talk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote on St Mary's Cathedral Basilica to keep, as it has shown work and appears to be notable. --Адам Райли ^Talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am in no way doing this to make a point, or on an agenda, and that these are all in good faith. Yes, I did nominate one article for deletion by mistake. However, I changed my position to speedy keep. I got the list of these churches from Church stubs, not googling anything that says Church in it. This is purely in good faith. --Адам Райли ^Talk 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Lutheran Church (Willmar, Minnesota)
Christian Life Fellowship
City Centre Church
Cliffdale Community Church
Denton Bible Church
Emmanuel Church
Evangelical Catholic Church
Evangelical Church of the Deaf
Evangelical Free Church of Naperville
Faith! Christian Church
Faithful Central Bible Church
Family Christian Center
First Baptist Church of Springdale
First Baptist Church of Sunny Side
First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton)
Forge Road Bible Chapel
Garywood Assembly of God
Good Shepherd Cathedral, Ayr
Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church
Holy Name Church
Holy Rosary Catholic Church
Ilfracombe Baptist Church
Ilfracombe Christian Fellowship Church
Immaculate Heart of Mary Church
Jubilee Christian Church
Leeds Reformed Baptist Church
MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)
Metropolitan Community Church of New York
Metropolitan Community Church of North London
Morden Alliance Church
Mt. Olive Church of God
Nanortalik Church
New Creation Church (Singapore)
Faith Community Baptist Church (Singapore)
New Hope Wesleyan Church
North Presbyterian Church
Northland Cathedral
Our Lady of Grace (Howard Beach)
Our Savior's Lutheran Church (Burbank, Illinois)
Promiseland West Church
PromiseLand San Marcos
Rostrevor Baptist Church
Saint Clare Parish
Saint Elizabeth of the Hill Country Catholic Church
Saint Fintans' Church, Sutton
Saint Frances Cabrini Parish
Saint Julie Billiart Parish
Saint Mary's Catholic Church (Cascade)
Saint Patrick Proto-Cathedral Parish
Saint Victor Parish (San Jose)
Saint-Joseph, Le Havre
San Martino di Burano
Scum of the Earth Church
Shiloh Church
Simi Valley Community Church
Spring Creek Church
St Albans Anglican Community Church
St Mary's Cathedral Basilica
St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego
St Paul's Church Worcester
St. Andrew's Church, Goldsworth Park
St. Gabriel Parish
St. Gwynno Church
St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton
Delete per non-notability. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Articles that are sourced solely to an institution's own website are questionable, in my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If individual churches without any unique or defining features are held to be non-notable, so be it. I created one of the articles. michael ^talk 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The St Mary's Cathedral Basilica listed here is the headquarters of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese, which is the Episcopal See of the Syro Malabar Archiepiscopal Church. Hence it certainly shouldn't be deleted (NOTE: A little bit of vanity working here, as I created the article myself). Given this, I doubt if other important churches might be listed here too.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, as for the above; create an AfD for each church to be discussed. Somitho 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all undisputed articles. Keep and individually Afd any disputed articles to prevent train wreck. --- RockMFR 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only Undisputed Pastordavid 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep All nomination appears to be a WP:Point about churches, and the mass nomination is certainly inappropriate. Nominations in the past couple of days as a part of this have included Willow Creek Community Church and Saddleback Church. Pastordavid 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Calvery Lutheran (Willmar, MN) would be worth keeping if it was the first congregation of the Norwegian - Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church, it is certainly one of the first. I would keep this up and give someone a chance to check on that.
- Evangelical Catholic Church is a denomination (see List of Lutheran denominations, not a local congregation, if that matters.
- Faith! Christian appears notable as it is pastored by the national Vice-President of the Assemblies of God in Australia and is the parent organization of a college.
- St Mary's Basilica seems notable, because of its history and current function.
- St John's Cathedral (Edmunton) seems notable to me, because of the previous bishop, its role as a major cathedra church.

Pastordavid 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncontended, treat all as WP:PROD (i.e. undelete and if necessary AfD on request), to avoid trainwreck, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all undisputed as non-notable. Doc Tropics 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing guideline. Renom individually any contested.--cj | talk 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per suggested route above. Eusebeus 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only clearly non-notable churches, keep all others. For example, also Faithful Central Bible Church seems to be notable as it was involved in a trade-union protest action - http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/Forum_IA33_Solidarity_D2 (should be mentioned in the article, I think), it was mentioned in LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endtimes22jun22,0,5277604,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california) etc. I suspect that the nominator just googles Wikipedia for articles with "church" in the title and nominates them for deletion without studying them case by case.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep all per Agent 86 - probably bad faith nomination.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, we went through this with a bunch of historic synagogues a while ago, and those weren't even this many. Mass-nominating is a really bad idea in most cases. Some of these articles aren't really worth the trouble, but the subjects may well be notable and should emphatically not be knee-jerkishly re-deleted if they are deleted now and a better version recreated later. I am inclined to keep all cathedrals and any churches with a couple of centuries of history or more, as well as anything that stands out architecturally.
- Keep St Mary's Cathedral Basilica. In addition to its cathedral status, the article claims that it was originally constructed in 1112 AD, which makes it historic enough, even if most of the current building may be younger.
- Keep St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton as a cathedral (seat of a bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada).
- The article on St. Gwynno Church at Llanwynno in Wales is a worthless substub, but the church is from the 12th century and probably has historic interest, if someone would want to expand it. Here is a wonderful image of the church with cemetery in its best horror movie mood. And more images found here.
- Weak redirect Nanortalik Church to Nanortalik. (The image is already there, and the redirect will do no harm and could have been done without the AFD.)
- Redirect Shiloh Church to The Living Word Fellowship.
- Faith Community Baptist Church (Singapore) and New Creation Church (Singapore) are megachurches with 10,000 and 12,000 attenders per week. That sounds a lot to me.
- The Metropolitan Community Church of North London and Metropolitan Community Church of New York seem unusual in targeting the gay/lesbian/transgendered communities. I don't know if that makes them special enough, though. Has anything been written about them?
- Keep Good Shepherd Cathedral, Ayr. Not historic, but a cathedral.
- Keep San Martino di Burano. This is a Renaissance church in Burano, just outside Venice, and a little googling shows that it features artwork by Antonio Zanchi and Giambattista Tiepolo, as well as its very own leaning tower.
- Keep Saint-Joseph, Le Havre, a modern but original church looking like a lighthouse from the outside and with a spire that can be looked up into all the way to the top and filled with little coloured-glass windows. Here are several more images. It is also clearly an important landmark in an important French city.

OK, there may well be others. Again, I really dislike mass-nominations like this, as there won't be time to research and rewrite anything that might look like it is worth saving. U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--is someone taking aim at Churches; the ones I'm connected with are historic congregations, that, I'M SORRY, I haven't had the time to expand from Stub status... MERRY Christmas, and BAH-HUMBUG to the one who submitted the Afd.... Bacl-presby 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and relist as separate AfDs. To respond to Bacl-presby, the nominator has spent the last few days nominating churches for deletion (even to the point of nominating articles that simply have "church" in the title). I don't think it's gone so far to prove a point, but there certainly seems to be an agenda. While many of the nominated churches have been non-encyclopedic, quite a few (both those from the past few days and in today's list) are and should not be deleted. Agent 86 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I have no problem with an "agenda" per se. If a user wants to go on a mini-crusade and nominate a cart-load of churches, or cellular antennae, or malls, or college a cappella groups, more power too s/him. I do, however, agree that this list is a bit hard to digest and individual AfDs might have been more effective.--Dmz5 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and relist individually, as per Agent 86. The range of the nominator's recent entries is too broad to accept a block nomination like this one. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All for now and relist individually, per discussion above: this way is just too confusing, and will likely give the closing admin a headache. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
I can't do blanket delete, there are notable entries in there. Keep All, and relist individually. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL Too many dissimilar churches lumped together in one nomination. Please withdraw the nomination and nominate separately so each can be judged on its own merits. Some are non-notable. But some are megachurches, or the largest in the state, one is St Mary's Cathedral Basilica a cathedral dating back to 1112 AD in India. Keep all listed by U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d. One "church" appears to be a denomination. Give me a break, per WP:CHURCH and common sense, with lumping them all together. These are not fungible TV masts. Edison 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL Since there is at least one that appears to be extremely notable, St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, I cant' be sure the nominator actually read all the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist individually. Tragic romance 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -listing numerous churches with AfDs then not even allowing discussion per nomination is totally inappropriate. Kukini 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur, mass nominations are a bad idea. It's possible the equivalent of St. Peter's Basilica is in there and I wouldn't know it without careful scanning. FrozenPurpleCube 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and renominate individually with rationales for each. The nominator appears to have missed Charlotte Church, however. Tonywalton | Talk 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redo nominations individually. This nomination has been unwantedly fouled up by mass-nomination. Furthermore, all church buildings are individually notable, as are all major religious buildings. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WINP/ Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, they are about real places. --Qyd 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist individually those which appear to be non-notable.--Tdl1060 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This mass nomination seems to have been in bad faith as many of the articles are clearly notable. --- RockMFR 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This is nothing more than a communist insurrection on Wikipedia. On his user page you can see that he is a Russian atheist. It is clear from the mass-nomination that he just wants to wipe Christianity off from the face of Wikipedia, if not history and the world. Well, we are not going to stand it so welcome to Democracy. This is clearly an interesting church for its unique style. This blatant attempt to purge Christianity from Wikipedia is really getting out of hand and is becoming censureship, but we will be heard. I am the primary author of the New Testament Baptist Church article that has come under attack recently and was refered here from its Afd. Help stop the madness and vote to keep churchs on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church also.--Jorfer 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JEF, please restrain from personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of this type. It does not matter who he is, the important thing is whether the articles keep the notability guidelines and whether this nomination was a good faith one in the sense that the nominator thoroughly checked all the nominated articles against the guidelines. User pages with religious and political statements are annoying and often offensive, but they cannot be used as arguments in AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I agree with JEF; he just wants the churches off Wikipedia. It's plainly obvious he's an atheist; he created the Wikiproject for atheists! Besides that, originally, the Burnt Church First Nation was nominated; it's obvious he just googled anything with 'church' in it. BloodLinedBandLead 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following:
1. Bayside Community Church is a conference church, rather than one with a recurring pastor. This is a weak claim to notability all on its own. It also makes it harder to evaluate whether the notable preachers constitute an additional claim to notability. At the very least it needs its own discussion.
2. Evangelical Catholic Church as it is a denomination, and has had a prior AFD with no consensus so it clearly needs individual consideration. We usually keep denominations, and no reason is provided for removing this denomination.
3. Evangelical Church of the Deaf is for the Deaf, which makes it quite different from the typical church, much more likely to be notable and should be considered separately.
4. Saint-Joseph, Le Havre has an independent citation in the article, so it needs individualized attention.
5. St Mary's Cathedral Basilica is 894 years old, and it is a Basilica. It is notable.
6. St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton is a bishop's throne, it is almost definitely notable, and certainly needs individual attention.
I also think the closing admin should seriously consider declaring a trainwreck, as I don't believe the nominator actually read all the articles that he nominated, much less thought about whether the issues were the same for all of them. I certainly don't have the time to research them all, so offer no opinion on any others. GRBerry 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bayside Community Church and No Vote on the other ones. They should have individual afds if someone thinks they should be deleted, i'll be neutral towards them until then.Just H 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, especially on the grounds that mass-nominations don't allow a coherent assessment of individual cases. Some articles nominated are admittedly not notable as they currently stand, but many seem capable of being expanded to become valid entries - the list seems a random, incoherent selection. Create an AfD for separate articles if necessary, after further time to allow expansion of content and further assessment. 'Keep all' at this stage. Carbonix 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, purely on the basis that there are far far too many nominated here to have an accountable AfD process - 64 articles all getting tarred in the same brush stroke is not good - about the only way that would be acceptable is if they were all from the same originating author as part of a spamming - but these are all by different authors, some cathedrals not churches, some are total junk but some are historically important buildings deserving of articles and some of them have existed for a couple of weeks but some have an article history going back a year and a half or more. We can't just scatter gun and take out 64 articles because a few are spammy. In the case of the article that brought me here it is far more deserving to be merged into its town article than deleted. I very strongly suggest this Afd is withdrawn and the 64 looked at more closely, relisting in sensible numbers where accountability can be given to the process not just "delete them all" and doing damage to this encyclopaedia. SFC9394 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep all of these please many are notable and mass nominations like this are disruptive and unhelpful really Yuckfoo 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all due to mass nomination; also vote to keep Our Savior's Lutheran Church (Burbank, Illinois) - with 2207 members, it appears to be the fifth largest congregation in the ELCA's Metropolitan Chicago Synod, and the second largest in Cook County. The article's a measly stub, but that shouldn't be the main criteria. MisfitToys 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wyka[edit]

Candidate for U.S. Representative who seems to have lost his election and has no other reason for notability Deville (Talk) 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This doesn't warrant a deletion. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Losing an election does not cause a person to lose nobility IMO. Somitho 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither does it make one notible. Pastordavid 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - also rans don't gain notariety by losing. SkierRMH,08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be shown, as already stated, standing and losing is not notable. Nuttah68 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe I read somewhere on wp a debate on inclusion of election candidates. I do recall reading that notability, at once established cannot be lost. However, my vote would be not to include election candidates unless they are otherwise notable. Thus, in this case, I would have supported deletion before the election. Alan.ca 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here but an educated guy and an expired campaign platform. Deizio talk 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer notable or relevant. Preserving this sort of information should be done by original sources. - Justin (Authalic) 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed election candidate. -- Whpq 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homes in South Park[edit]

Nothing more than fancruft. (trogga) 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of places in South Park, since the setting of a story is pivotal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WAF: Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. WP:FICT: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis... OR fanlistcruft from start to finish and utterly useless to Wikipedia per WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#IINFO and so on -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. King Toadsworth 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Somitho 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pastordavid 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of places in South Park; there are some things in here that would be utile there. SkierRMH,08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CanadianCaesar StayinAnon 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable (WP:FICT). Also descrbes a work of fiction from an in-universe perspective -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:SkierRMH - The RSJ 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per user:IslaySolomon -- Whpq 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Canadian Caesar. Just H 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heh, if you want to know this kind of stuff, just go tosome fansite.To much junk here already.EnabledDanger 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Nozuka[edit]

Nom - fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:BIO; claims for notability are weak; sources cited are self-created; minimal Google hits. Rklawton 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While weak, for nobility; I have seen articles far worse which have stuck around. Somitho 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I've seen worse" is never a reason for keeping an article. This guy is a one-album artist whose only release came out last month. Rklawton 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH,08:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't tell you how much it incenses me to see an article put up for AFD simply because the nom and the majority of AFD watchers are ignorant of the country or culture in which the article's topic is notable. Ignorance is not non-notability. [15][16][17][18] would seem to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. And [19] is an arguable meet of criterion #2, which is rather vague. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - OK, let's see what we've learned. The first link indicates that not only has this person released only one album, but it's also the label's first release. That doesn't exactly make it a major label. The second and third articles only confirm this. The fourth link mentions a "#1" spot for one of his singles, but it isn't at all clear about what list this comes from. The fifth link is from a promotional site that lists one of his singles as #1 briefly. Face it, the kid just put out his first album on an indy label and suddenly we're supposed to believe he's a notable musician? I think our doubt is more than justified. Rklawton 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your justification for NN is not based on the music notability guideline, then don't bother citing it as a failed test. The subject passes WP:MUSIC, despite your and others' insistence to the contrary, and is therefore notable. Granted, I'd never heard of this artist before about two days ago, but I'm not Canadian. In any case, baseless deletionism bugs the hell out of me. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 08:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how he passes MUSIC? It would certainly help this discussion along. Rklawton 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to read WP:MUSIC to you. #1 says been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. The first four links are independently written stories about the artist, in reliable sources such as the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Sun. here's another one from the Toronto Star. WP:MUSIC #2 says Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. The fifth link above shows the artist's single at #1 on the Canadian MuchMusic chart, and continued chart placements on subsequent weeks.

While I'm at it, WP:MUSIC #4 says Has gone on... a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country. He has already been on a cross-Canada promotional tour, and has more stops next year. Again, read the fine cites. In any case, WP:MUSIC indicates that only one of the criteria must be met to establish notability. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit it was just a promo tour? By your way of looking at it, a solo act heading cross-country in a minivan to hawk his only album would qualify a musician for inclusion. That's certainly not what the policy editors had in mind. I think you might be taking too many liberties with the concept of "national concert tour". Rklawton 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although urban Canadian music is a small market, it is important nonetheless. There are plenty of other artists in the same class that have their wiki articles, which is useful for me, a Canadian. 1dsm3 12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an OR list of dicdefs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering terms[edit]

Nothing but a list of unsourced slang. We're not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. This is not a list of keywords, that's separate, this is just slang made up by players without any documentation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete - horrible unsourced fancruft. wtfunkymonkey 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could certainly be better documented but if documentation is the reason for a deletion I would contest that citations could be found without too much effort. An article like this (from the game publisher) would cover a sizable chunk of the article. Being poorly sourced makes this a candidate for improvement, not deletion. Mr Bound 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: first party sources are typically not valid for citation. See WP:NOTE WP:RS and WP:INDY. wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We're still not a dictionary, though, so we can't include things that are nothing more than a list of definitions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would appear that this article is what would be considered a glossary, and a look through the corresponding Wikipedia category Category:Glossaries (where the article in question is listed) would turn up a lot of similar articles such as Chess terminology and List of Final Fantasy VII terms. While I encourage you to take a look at the second and see what this article should probably look like (because it's thoroughly well cited and decently pruned, and because personally I think it's a similar level of notability), with regards to glossaries and AFD there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus. Several glossaries similar to this (with varying degrees of citations) have survived AFDs (slang for Police here and Internet slang here). The appropriate discussion (Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_glossaries_are_(NOT)) has yet to pass into policy. I think the article can be improved and pruned, and that some glossaries are worth including. Mr Bound 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The page you linked specifically states "Slang dictionaries, which contain mostly dicdefs and are not used to read an article (since we don't write in slang) are not glossaries under this definition." One of the two you linked survived on a no consensus with a lot of votes saying WP:ILIKEIT. The other has citations for every single entry. Individual neologisms without sources are considered unacceptable here; why should a few dozen of them without any sources be any better? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tap: delete target article. It can't be regenerated This is an incomplete, arbitary and crufty list of dictdefs. MER-C 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Weak Keep Needs rewritten, but it still is a good source for terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somitho (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No verifiable sources means we're looking at original research. Therefore it violates wp:v and wp:or. If it can't pass the 3 pillars, it doesn't belong. Alan.ca 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, Delete. Eusebeus 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for basically every reason. It's entirely neologisms, it's completely unsourced and unverifiable, and it is guaranteed to contain at least some OR simply because slang terms by their very nature are subjective to one group or another (and therefore any "meaning" given to them is original research subjective to the giver). I'd say speedy this article if at all possible -Markeer 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think these are dicdefs, but the article is a list of neologisms, so it's hard to verify and show notability. delldot | talk 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by virtue of being slang. --Khaim 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original research? I'm not saying every term on the page can be verified, but many can. Those that can't? Feel free to remove them. Still wouldn't be original research, as that's about advancing a cause, but whatever. However, the existence of the article itself doesn't violate any principles of Wikipedia that I know about. Magic the Gathering is a real game, it is notable, and it does have a common vernacular shared among its players. This can be verified from many magazines and articles. (Scrye for example has done it several times). How a list of words common to a subject violates Wikipedia policy, I don't know, but if it does, how about deleting Category:Glossaries? I'd especially include the Baseball jargon ones. Or maybe Transwiki them to Wikitionary, if they belong there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being OR is not a deletion criterion, it is at most a reason for trying to improve the article. Moreover, this article has been cited by the game's manufacturer as a useful resource for players. Deleting it would put Wikipedia in the rather embarassing position of having people come here from WotC's site only to find the article they're looking for deleted out from under them. PurplePlatypus 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being original research most definitely is a deletion criterion, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is one of our most fundamental deletion criteria. And that people have been referred to an unencyclopaedic article is not a reason to keep an unencyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. If you want to make a case for keeping that holds water, rather than one that is in direct opposition to our fundamental policies, please cite sources to demonstrate that this article is not original research, is verifiable, and is not a mini-dictionary of slang. Uncle G 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, speaking for myself, I added two sources rather easily. It's about as easy for the rest of the terms that should be kept, and dump the rest. So, OR as an argument for deletion is not that applicable here. It's a clean-up issue for this article, not an inherent problem with the very concept of it. The real question is, does a list of words common to a specific subject belong on Wikipedia. And I think the plethora of glossaries indicates that there is some acceptance to their inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, then we should be discussing that, then dealing with the articles like this. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though vaguely possible article could be recreated in the future. If the article is to be saved (or for when/if the article is remade), I would recommend something in the form of List of Internet slang phrases- all entries must be referenced by a not-user-editable website, and at least two editors viligantly guard the article, ruthlessly deleting all additions that don't. (That would mean that about 98% of the current article should be commented out or deleted.) SnowFire 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOT a jargon or usage guide, and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Board and table games. Collection of fan-created terms that fails to provide the reader with any encyclopedic info helping them to understand MtG in any context except fancruft. Barno 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, because magicplayers will automatically fill in more details. Mtg is a game that is expanding in so many conceptual directions that no single individual or group can contain it all. I for instance can easily envision a mtg only wp. Besides, slang will be incorporated into wp no matter what is done to avoid it. Wp will be subject to I-wars (information-wars), and biased oppinions will collide while "fanatics" of certain ideologies try to textually wipe out other articles with "intolerant" contents. As a defence mechanism people will turn to slang so that articles with their oppinion are not found and "errataed" by the opposition.

Comment - While nearly incoherent and devoid of any reference to actual deletion criteria, the above post raises one interesting point. If this article flunks this AFD, as seems likely, could I get access to the text of it somehow? Whether you think it belongs on Wikipedia or not, this is valuable to certain people and deserves to be on some Wiki somewhere. PurplePlatypus 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in other AFDs there have been mentions of transwikiing to Wiktionary? Go ahead and do it if you feel compelled. Mr Bound 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an MTG wiki that is horrible and bad linked from the main MTG article's ELs currently. Just edit the source, select it all, and move it on over there- I'd been intending to do that myself, actually. SnowFire 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple, yes I may seem incoherent, but only because I assume others posses the same knowledge as myself. It's a constant hindrance to my communication with other people. The most coherent thing I can state may be "Keep this magic stuff, change the parts you dislike if you know what magic is about, but never think of any knowledge as being useless". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.165.63.132 (talk • contribs)

Good idea, PurplePaltypus. here's a Magic the Gathering wiki, go wild. delldot | talk 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No can do. That site is BY-NC-SA, which is GFDL incompatible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because I'm following attempts to preserve this article if it fails AFD, can you expand what BY-NC-SA means? Mr Bound 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the Wikia one rather than the mtgsalvation one; it's at List of Magic: the Gathering slang terms on that site. It's not well-linked there but I assume that will come in time. Of course, as noted above, that whole wiki is in rather sad shape, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. PurplePlatypus 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - not encyclopedic, complete cruft, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also unsourced, and WP:V and WP:RS - and also WP:OR, and OR synthesis - are not negotiable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Moreschi said. Sandstein 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Instead of deleting this article, I think the various statements should simply be sourced and cited. ComradeAF 17:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One percenter[edit]

Delete WP:OR, fails WP:V, maybe even WP:HOAX. Doubtful notability even if this was reconciled.Just H 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this cruft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Split Infinity (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 December 2006.
Delete OR, doesn't seem notable, fails WP:V. --Sable232 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random cruft; per nom. King Toadsworth 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Somitho 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect "One percenter" to Motorcycle club. Mmoyer 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, everything from this article is covered in the Motorcycle club article, with the added bonus of references. Mmoyer 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - please, useless. SkierRMH,08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One deleter to add to the chorus. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a fairly well known concept. IIRC it was mentioned in Hunter S. Thompson's book on the Hell's Angels. At any rate it meets the "I had heard of it before I read the Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I've heard of this as I have a few bikers in my family. It's definitely not a hoax, and it needs expansion; don't know quite how to go about doing this for this topic. I searched on the web before this AFD and could not find much more than this. Someone realy dedicated to the topic needs to dig harder. - CobaltBlueTony 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with some of the reasons for the "keep" votes, but still, this is just cruft that Wikipedia can use without. The RSJ 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, well-known, well documented concept, google turns up thousands of hits related to this, e.g. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. That last one is from a History Channel documentary I saw which discusses the concept. I'm sure there's plenty of other reliable, verifiable sources to be found with only the tiniest bit of research. It's been around since the forties (July 4, 1947 according to one of those sources). Some of those refs may be a little trivial, but some definitely are not, and I'm sure that many more can be found. Also acceptable would be a redirect per Mmoyer, but deleting this real, important and verifiable concept while keeping all the dumptruckloads of cruft we have about (e.g.) Pokemon, one-hit-wonder bands, video-game weaponry and dead-end highway spurs would be criminal! Xtifr _tälk 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Xtifr. --Krator 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MMoyer's reasoning. GRBerry 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed a legitimate term for some, but shouldn't the definition of a term be in the dictionary?ER ^Talk 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Doc^g 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep melodic jazz[edit]

Is deep melodic jazz even a real type of jazz? I think not. Also non-notable. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteSmaller than a sub-stub, and completely useless article. King Toadsworth 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Seemingly, User "PEZ", who by no coincidence has also edited Coram Deo (album), created this article so that the link (he probably put) in Coram Deo wouldn't be "red" (check his/her contribs and/or article histories). Besides, Google gives only a handful of forum posts about the genre. —EdGl 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn genre, only 18 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sub-section under Jazz would be appropriate. Somitho 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn genre, probably neologism? SkierRMH,08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - I have posted on the article discussion about the genre. More info will be added soon. If you have other sugestions i'm open to them. Yes I have added the info about the Coram Deo album. That album is "deep melodic jazz". It's a mixture of that genres and it also has the posiblity to be played by bigger bands. You can lissen the album online at last.fm. So first, please lissen to the album to see from what i'm talking about. Thanks --PET 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's plenty of genre mixing out there, but not all genre hybrids deserve their own genre name. The key is whether the genre is actually famous or not. Whether or not one band makes music in a way described by the genre, the genre may be totally unheard of. And that's the key. Now, if a google test returned much more than 18 hits, I think you'd have more to back you up. But think of it this way: Tryad released their album Public Domain saying it was under the genre "Industrial Classic Pop"; that doesn't mean Industrial Classic Pop deserves it's own page on wikipedia, you dig? -Monk of the highest order^(t) 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you want delete it. The thing here was that the author of Coram Deo wanted to start a new musican genre called Deep Melodc Jazz. It's not just a name, it's a combination of styles that he wanted to do. So here google won't help since it's a new genre. So what would you sugges? To create a small "entry" in the Jazz Genre? --PET 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would wait until the genre becomes more popular, notable, verifyable, etc. before adding it to an article. By the way, thanks for being cooperative and not taking offense. =) —EdGl 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From PET's comments here, it doesn't seem like this genre is notable or verifiable. —ShadowHalo 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No delete !votes addressed the arguments that article passed WP:BIO. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Davies[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 05:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 06:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, this is not a vote, but a debate. Do you have a point to make that might be fruitful to the argument? Alan.ca 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Verified only by subject's own website, which does not sufficiently assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I added a citation for a book review for a book solely about the subject. Alan.ca

Delete per nom, don't see possiblity of expanding. SkierRMH,08:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be expanded, but it will most likely be done by people with access to African resources. Alan.ca 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations need to be properly added so they don't refer back to her Web site, but if she has really been written about in all of those places, she definitely meets WP:BIO. I'd rather tag and fix an article about a notable person instead of deleting it. Mus Musculus 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable [26] [27] [28], lots more. It's "Davies" though. - crz crztalk 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considerably cleaned up and moved. Note to closing sysop: earlier voters were googling the misspelled last name. - crz crztalk 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, do you have anything to contribute to the debate? Alan.ca 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Somitho 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing added/expanded to substanitate claims there. SkierRMH,08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted. MER-C 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--Hu12 14:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, do you have anything to contribute to the debate? Alan.ca 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article claims notability for her, and substantiates that. I'm not clear what it is that people here find non-notable about her, as few if any "voters" against have explained. A quick Google reveals ample grounds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a book review in a Journal about a book written about the article subject. See the updated article. I think this brings the article out of deletion candidacy. Please also remember, this is an article about a foreign artist, these types of articles are seriously under represented in the English Wikipedia. Alan.ca 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet standards for WP:BIO; notability is claimed and established. Doc Tropics 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reference established notability as per WP:BIO. No reason to delete. Ccscott 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she comes under the heading: 'Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field' in WP:BIO. --Publunch 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to satisfy WP:BIO's standards. But why no mention of her running shoes? --DeLarge 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone wrote a biography of her, that's a pretty clear demonstration of objective notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus between keeping, keeping and merging, or deletion; those wishing to merge are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDKA Sports Showdown[edit]

Nothing notable; just another talk show. Akihabara 12:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half the stations in the country have a sports talk show after the Sunday late news. Not notable. Fan-1967 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable? Its on TV in a major city. It exists. The article is factual though short. Its NPOV. So what if half the stations have a sports talk show. So be it. This is wikipedia not paper. Wiki has articles on every tom dick and harry in every book and video game and TV show. This is a TV show. Nothing 'un'notable about it. Thousands must watch it to be on in a major city network affiliate. Whats the number to achieve 'notibility'? Keep it.--Xiahou 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor is it TV Guide. If this is kept, should we also have an article on every local TV program? Fan-1967 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if they add them, sure. I can look up a character from a 1940s independent comic, I can look up something about a small monument in a very small town on here. I can look up 1 shot characters of a TV series. Tid bits of information, but a tv show seen in a major city TV market doesn't meet "your" criteria of being 'good' enough. Considered indescriminate? How many people need to watch and in what area for a TV show to be discriminate and be included my 'your' definition?--Xiahou 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and rather obvious merge to the station - crz crztalk 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Crzrussian. As much as I like da Stillers and KDKA, not sure if this needs its own article. Dragomiloff 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with station. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per policy and precedent. TTV|talk|contribs|email 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I partially agree with Fan-1967, if it is syndicated across multiple cities it should be listed. Somitho 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KDKA per precedent. SkierRMH,08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White House Beach, Delaware[edit]

very non-notable. Just a small community/neighborhood. The only links to it are on the creator's userpage and a vandal's talk page. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more it can be expanded, and probably still not satisfying notability standards. Reywas92^Talk 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs expansion, but IMO it should not be deleted. Somitho 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see any notablity; and given the size of the neighbourhood, unless something notable happened (that doesn't come up with a google search).SkierRMH,08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Expand Hello, I'm the creator of the article, User:ASDFGHJKL. Were did you find links to my page and a vandals talk? The only link I've created is the homepage to the neighborhood. I created this article when I just started. I should've added a "expand this article' headliner. I think it should be just expanded.

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

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

The result was Delete. Doc^g 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dozier Middle School[edit]

Some of the article went straight to immortality at WP:BJAODN, but in actuality, it misses the good ol' WP:SCHOOL. TTV|talk|contribs|email 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be deleted until it can actually be expanded upon. Somitho 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn non secondary school. --- RockMFR 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN schol. SkierRMH,08:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newport News Public Schools (which should really include a list), per WP:LOCAL. -- Visviva 12:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to the school district page. There's obviously no chance this article will be kept, so why keep such nonsense on the site for a few more days when we can just make it a redirect now? -- Kicking222 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No point in redirecting at this time since Newport News Public Schools has no relevant information, and the article does not have any useful information that could be merged into it. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a list of secondary schools with basic info to the district page. Should be enough for a good ol' {{r to list entry}}.-- Visviva 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Agrrgrhh this is spam. Delete. --RedPooka 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow how this is spam. -- Visviva 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to the School District page. FireSpike Editor Review! 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this to the newport news public schools page since people will search for this Yuckfoo 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup. Just H 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. At best redirect to Newport News Public Schools per WP:LOCAL, WP:SCHOOLS, and WP:SCHOOLS3. Vegaswikian 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia[edit]

Delete: A school project Wiki with no actual claims of notability. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, as nothing has been written about it by a reliable source. Definite conflict of interest/vanity material there. Delete. Wickethewok 04:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I entirely disagree with this accusation. This is outrageous... the Conservapedia entry does meet all of the criteria and this has already been discussed thoroughly in the Conservapedia Talk Page. What about the Demopedia page? In your opinion does that also not meet WP:WEB and WP:V? I am expecting a prompt explanation for this. VeniVidiVici007 05:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any "Demopedia page." There's an article about the Democratic Underground, which is an online community with approximately a thousand times as many members as Conservapedia, and the article briefly mentions Demopedia in passing as one of many features available to the community.

The demand to delete "conservapedia" is a demand for a censorship. Why delete something that of interest and use to some? Conservapedia has over ten times the entries as Demopedia, which is featured on Wikipedia without complaint. Conservapedia is probably growing a thousand times faster, too.

Demopedia is not "featured on Wikipedia." Demopedia has no article as such. All it has is a brief mention in an article about a website with ninety thousand members. See above. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry liberal feminism on Wikipedia has no references or sources, but I don't hear demands to censor that entry. On that entry there are references to other liberal Wikipedia entries that have less notability: Anarcha-feminism, Cyborg feminism, Marxist feminism, etc.

There is a double-standard by liberals demanding to censor conservative entries. If successful, this illustrates the bias well. Andysch 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]

It is false to claim ten times as many articles. You were comparing Total Conservapedia articles versus New Since July Demopedia articles, not a valid comparison. Hu 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Obviously non-notable, fails WP:WEB and WP:V as well. VeniVidiVici, you're really bordering personal attacks there fyi. On Wikipedia, you don't demand. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Split Infinity, Conservapedia does meet criterion 3 of WP:WEB. The site is very well known (it has contributors nationwide) and runs independent of its creators. Also, I demanded absolutely nothing. I expected my post to jolt the Wikipedians and no offense was intended. VeniVidiVici007 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no substantial assertion of notability. So tagged. As for Demopedia, it's one paragraph in an article on a notable organisation. Feel free to get rid of it if you wish. MER-C 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Maybe raise another AfD later depending on how it progresses and delete it then if need be. They just got going about three weeks ago. They have 1500 articles, which is small, but not insignificant. I think Wikipedia should extend the benefit of doubt to competitors, in the spirit of fairness. Wikipedia will not suffer from a little competition, especially since they are avowedly Christian and have two flaws: one, they are biased and non-neutral point of view; two, they do not have an adequate means of filtering since they are very accepting of just about any kind of edit (may change later). It is so new that no third parties can be expected to have written about it, but they have potential. Technically it may fail on the Web criterion for the moment, but it is verified: it does exist and it is growing. The Conflict of Interest / Vanity charge is bogus, but even though I advocate keeping for now, we must still edit the article stringently, as I have been. So I say, relax the keep/delete criteria in their favor, but scrutinize a little more carefully in compensation. Hu 05:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the seven Google hits don't persuade me of its being "very well known" -- quite the contrary. If it becomes famous and covered in reliable third-party sources at a later date, then is the time to have an article on it. Only three of those Google hits are neither on Wikipedia nor Conservapedia itself. Antandrus (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Antandrus, I have a question for you. Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that Google is the designated gauge of how well known a site is? The site is only two or three months old... how many Google hits do you expect? Last time I checked, Conservapedia had 81 users, which is not bad on the scale of things. VeniVidiVici007 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a "policy" -- it's basically common sense. Conservapedia is not well known by any measure, except maybe to you and a few home-schooled kids. Hey, I wish you well building it, but we don't exist to help you attain notability. Antandrus (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well... I say it is well known, now what? It all depends on what you consider "well-known." I suggest we go with Hu's idea and give the site more time to become "well-known." VeniVidiVici007 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I say it is well known" is not a valid keep reason. Please read proof by assertion. We go on Wikipedia policy and guideline for our keep/delete decision, and the applicable policy/guideline here is WP:WEB. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The demand to delete "conservapedia" is a demand for a censorship. Why delete something that of interest and use to some? Conservapedia has over ten times the entries as Demopedia, which is featured on Wikipedia without complaint. Conservapedia is probably growing a thousand times faster, too. The entry liberal feminism on Wikipedia has no references or sources, but I don't hear demands to censor that entry. On that entry there are references to other liberal Wikipedia entries that have less notability: Anarcha-feminism, Cyborg feminism, Marxist feminism, etc. There is a double-standard by liberals demanding to censor conservative entries. If successful, this illustrates the bias well. Andysch 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch
Comment - Doesn't seem very well-known to me, no matter what the article says. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Split Infinity, what is your standard for a well-known site? VeniVidiVici007 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB. MER-C 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is a well known Wiki, this seems to be spreading into politics. Lets keep all sides functioning. Somitho 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is an abuse to demand "speedy delete" for political reasons. Conservapedia has obvious importance as an alternative source of information from a conservative perspective. With 1500 entries in a short period of time, conservapedia is clearly successful and growing quickly. There are many entries on Wikipedia that are less significant yet do not hear calls for speedy deletion. Let's be fair about this. Andysch 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
- How would you describe the process by which the article on Onan was recently deleted from Conservapedia? I would call it "speedy deletion." I didn't notice anything similar to an AfD discussion taking place there. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are free to nominate any article for deletion that you feel do not meet Wikipedia criteria for retention, Andysch. You can do it carefully following the three step AfD tagging process, or you can get someone else who agrees with you to do it for you, though it is not difficult. Use it with care, but feel free to use it where you have read the relevant Wikipedia policy pages and feel that an article meets the criteria for deletion. That's fair. Hu 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just something that some editors here have missed: there is no Demopedia article - there is only a three sentence section about it in Democratic Underground, which should be deleted too if it fails WP:WEB (I don't know if it does/does not). Wickethewok 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Demopedia sentences should not be deleted they are an informative aspect about a notable web site. You might as well delete mention of Lincoln Chafee's classics degree because he never used it, but that would be equally ridiculous. Hu 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:V (seven Ghits)and Conflict of interest.--John Lake 07:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ignore votes to keep for "liberal bias" reasons. Started three weeks ago, does not have any externally verifiable sources for the article. The ONLY reason to delete or keep this article is for policy reasons (WP:WEB), not reasons of "this is censorship!" or "Let's give them a fair chance". When/if the Conservapedia is written about by a reliable news source, there can be a Wikipedia article on it. Lovablebeautyme 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article doesn't help itself by making spurious claims about being 'one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable site. Fails WP:WEB--RWR8189 10:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, non-notable site. Saying "It might be famous soon" isn't an argument to keep it. Come back when it does have verifiable third-party references. Mrjeff 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, plentiful evidence of conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no external sources whatsoever (not even trivial ones) means this fails WP:WEB. Demiurge 13:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the demands to censor this entry illustrates how Wikipedia has changed from its original purpose. This entry is factual, useful and obviously noteworthy, as demonstrated by the many comments here. Yet some don't like this entry for political reasons, and demand it be removed. If it is removed, the only question will be this: how many other sites have similarly been removed or censored on Wikipedia for political reasons??? Alternative sites may be the only way to combat this type of censorship. Andysch 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
- The article, as you and your allies wrote it, was full of promotional adjectives and at least one factual error. I spent a little time editing it down to a more factual presentation. I also took time to advise you on some policy pages to read, but you have given no indication that you have digested or absorbed them, or even read them. The article is not being censored. You are new users here, and you don't understand yet as well as the other conservatives who are more experienced on Wikipedia, that Neutral Point of View is the controlling philosophy here and it works. Wikipedia policies and processes like this AfD have been hammered out over years and with thousands of discussions and participants. They are robust and effective and neutral. You need to get up to the level of understanding of the other conservatives here because your claims of censorship and political bias don't hold water. It used to be that conservatives would see a "red under every bed" (communist). Now they sometimes see a censor behind every web page. Both views are nonsensical. Wikipedia has articles on conservative sites Little Green Footballs and Free Republic. The Conservapedia article does technically fail the notability requirements, but I have argued on your behalf that it deserves a relaxed interpretation of the rules. I suggest that you try to adopt christian humility and Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy (which is christian and conservative, when you think about it, though not limited to those orientations) and have the good grace to not question people's motives here. Hu 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: namely WEB and COI. Eusebeus 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chuchunezumi 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this site current fails WP:WEB notability. If at some point in the future this site increases its significance I have no doubt a wikipedia article will be written about it, with sourced notation of its impact and cultural relevance. In response to those above arguing that it is larger than X site, or that it harms no one to keep it, or that "its of interest to some" should review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I wish the creators of that site the best of luck in their endeavor, but until that endeavor takes off it cannot claim more importance than any other start up web project of its size. -Markeer 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reasons cited here for immediately deleting "conservapedia" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the "speedy delete" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain. Andysch 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
- A Red under every bed! Oh no, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the article or the newness of the website, it must be them pesky pointy-haided libruhls! Hu 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries I'm working on it.--RWR8189 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Andysch: Possibly you should read through that article I linked right before your comment, Andysch. 1) re: "Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries" is only an argument that there are many other Wikipedia entries that may need to be deleted, not an argument to keep this one if it fails to meet wikipedia's criteria. 2) The reason this "particular entry" is being debated is because someone looked at it, believed it was inappropriate, and brought it here. Dozens of other articles every day have this happen to them, and those do not involve politics so there is no need to do anything but assume good faith. 3) "it is obviously noteworthy": if it were obvious, there would be no debate. Don't assert it, prove it. The comments of a small handful of individuals does not make a website notable. Verifiable proof, in the form of reliable secondary sources, is what makes it notable. It is NOT obvious as the article currently exists. If you wish it to be obvious to those of us voting for deletion, find the evidence to support that, don't state it as rhetorical argument. -Markeer 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply fails all possible notability tests. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung and Markeer, and per Andysch, who said it only has 81 users (another notability measure). --Quuxplusone 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the verifiability policy, since no sources are cited and the only external link is the site itself, and because no evidence is provided that the site is of any importance. If someone provides good source citations to a source meeting the reliable source guidelines that show that there is widespread interest in this site, I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a place to drum up the appearance of notability for something that is clearly not notable yet.--Dmz5 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you want an eye-opener, check out conservapedia. Maybe it's time for a constitutional ammendment banning home-schooling? (kidding of course. I am just a wacko liberal I guess.)--Dmz5 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The discussion is about the article, it's not as if we are attempting to delete the encyclopedia itself. If the encyclopedia is indeed so notable, it will not take much damage not being listed in Wikipedia. I'm really sorry, but I can't really see any reason for inclusion, it a bit of a stretch to call it notable. Delta Tango • Talk 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Offered without comment: the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more interested in their entries on topics such as Church of England, Great Wall of China, Plato, etc. I was curious as to what the conservative, Christian-friendly "take" on these subjects might be, but, well, as they say, "it is designed to be a useful resource for students and teachers, which means it prefers concise entries." Yes, I know that Wikipedia looked a lot like that once... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P. S. It hope goes without saying that the fact that Conservapedia bills itself as being a competitor or component of WIkipedia is not a reason for deletion. Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch properly has a long section describing it, for example. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't about censorship. It's about non-trivial references. Yes, there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia with the same. If you find them, fix them or offer them up for deletion. Cheers. --jaydj 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've now noted in the article, their main page has received 4,301 hits (as I write this). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Now the main page is up to 4363 views! Maxamegalon2000 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB is not in this article's favour. - Justin (Authalic) 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not post the original entry "Conservapedia" here. But the defect to the citations above to numerous policies (like many regulations) is that enforcement becomes selective and biased. I've helped many criminal defendants against arbitrary enforcement of laws and know well the potential for abuse. Regardless, the above comments indicate that Wikipedia has become a tool for bullying, which is the opposite of its original purpose. I contributed to Wikipedia entries years ago when it was a voice for those outside of the mainstream. Sadly, Wikipedia has been taken over by bullies. Andysch 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)andysch[reply]
- Fact is, Wikipedia has a deliberative process that is not bullying. By contrast, if someone edits the Conservapedia Evolution page to indicate that the "theory" is well-established science, just like gravity, though well-established, is a "theory", the bullies at Conservapedia will delete it post-haste, without discussion or justification, because not only does it not fit their faith-based agenda, but there is no place on that site for anything else. By contrast, Wikipedia has an extensive series on so-called Intelligent Design, even though it is way outside of science and the mainstream. Hu 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Andysch, your persecution complex aside, this nothing more than an open discussion to reach consensus among editors on whether this particular article fits within Wikipedia's stated policies and guidelines. It does appear that quite a number of editors believe your article does not. End of story. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another {{db-web}} site which fails to claim or imply notability, no sign of non-trivial independent reporting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V -- Whpq 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hu, you have truly stated that on conservapedia.com an entry claiming that evolution is a well supported and well established fact was deleted. What you have overlooked is that a page was immediately created to welcome debate on the issue. If that's not fair I don't know what is. In fact the page on evolution has been more recently changed to so that it merely sums up the theory rather than either condemning or advocating it. Hannibal'sAlps
- Comment That's nice, but how does it show that Conservapedia satisfies WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB? Those are the only relevant criteria in this debate.--RWR8189 04:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- An encyclopedia like Conservapedia that doesn't welcome established science in its main body is not much of an encyclopedia, Hannibal's Alps. Hu 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All editors on both sides should keep in mind that whether Conservapedia is "fair and balanced" or whether it meets the definition of encyclopedia are not arguments for or against deletion by Wikipedia policy. Points made on either question are irrelevant. Please contain your arguments to the appropriate Wikipedia policies as listed by RWR8189. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That is true! Though consevapedia is quite fair and balanced, Such merits do not necessarily qualify it for a article on Wikipedia. I realize that although consevapedia does not quite meet the technical standards of not notability, the article on it is more worthwhile than thousands of other pages which are even less qualified. To keep this article woudl technically violate wikipedia policy, but to delete it would be hipocracy. Hannibal's Alps

Comment just as a reply to the hipocracy (sic) argument: I believe this point has been made a few times in this discussion, which confuses me. Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every week, and a large percentage of them are deleted upon discussion. Quite often the reasons for deletion are the same ones being argued here, which means there is no hypocrisy, only an ongoing consistent policy which is currently being applied to this article. The only other point you seem to be making is "the article is more worthwhile than..." which is, by definition, a subjective view completely at odds with wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view.

In other words, keeping this article because of the argument that "this article is more worthwhile than that article" WOULD be hypocrisy.-Markeer 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Dhartung is correct, these are not arguments for or against deletion. However, as an aside, Hannibal's Alps is flat wrong. Conservapedia is not fair and balanced (and not much of an encyclopedia) when it kicks science out of the encyclopedia articles and relegates it to a discussion page ghetto. Hu 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::: OK, here's the thing. You say that Wikipedia is unbiased because it contains material that would satisfy a "faith-based" person. But having the article doesn't invalidate a biased report. The content may be very biased. And, Conservapedia does, in fact, welcome established science in its articles. Then you might be asking why we deleted the phrase describing evolution as a scientific theory. Well the reason is very simple. That phrase did not meet the requirements of a well-supported statement. Based on solid scientific fact, the "theory" of evolution is just an accepted hypothesis. Drod7425 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, this page exists only to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted based on WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB. Content disputes should be on the article's talk page.--RWR8189 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This has nothing to do with any sort of black-helicoptered, blue-helmeted "liberal bias" of WP and everything to do with the fact that this article does nothing whatsoever to establish notability -- it doesn't even make an attempt. There is one external link (to the site itself) and three reference links (again, all to the site itself). Ordinarily I would hope to see an AfD nom like this result in an article being improved by adding in references that satisfy WP:WEB, but in this case there do not appear to be any (if a 7-hit Google search is any indicator). Seventypercent 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable? Yeah right. How about let's start calling this place Junkapedia!EnabledDanger 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kill strawman of censorship. Believe it or not, it's possible to want to delete someone's favorite site without any concern of censoring them. Just WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Pui-Mun Law[edit]

Deletion nomination Article about a fantasy roleplaying board/cardgame illustrator which has no claim of encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Yes, 105,000 ghits, but I've waded through like 15 pages of the search results, and can't find any authoritative sources showing encyclopedic notability. The hits are generally, fantasy art-related blogs and amateurish websites. I mean good grief, there are a lot of fantasy art fansites out there. Bwithh 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she may be a real artist, but notability is questionable. Article seems to have been created for no reason other than an elaborate attempt to bring false sense of validity to the bogus Tuba (mythology) article. Wavy G 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Somitho 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no notabliity, just blogospheres. SkierRMH,08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1.) This discussion seems to imply fantasy art and illustration in general has no claim of encyclopedic notability; deleting this article sets a precedent and will show personal bias unless ALL fantasy artists of similar rank are deleted from Wikipedia, including Brom, Todd Lockwood, Julie Bell, Amy Brown and countless others.

2.) Pui-Mun Law's work DOES have wide notability amongst fans, professionals and her peers in the field, where she is regarded as one of its premiere watercolorists, hence her resume reading like a who's who of companies who use fantasy art. She is as well known as any of the aforementioned artists, so again, deletion should include all or none of them. 3.) Does NOT fail WP:BIO. The 2nd and 9th bullet points apply. Verifiable references can be found and deletion is hasty and unnecessary. 4.) User Wavy G's (who has been banned) accusation is bizarre, nonsensical and irrelevant, having nothing to do with why an article on her (or any fantasy artist) was created and therefore should not be taken into account. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Okay, I just said her notablility was "questionable" (as others have pointed out, there is no assertion of notablility in the article) and the article was created by User:PatrickSW, a main contributor of a recently-deleted hoax article (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology)) about a made-up mythological creature, citing Ms. Pui-Mun Law's painting (called "Snail Siesta") as a painting of said creature--THEN creating this article. I simply said it was created out of an attempt to bring some sort of credibility to that article (and it worked, by the way). She may be notable in her own right, but, as others seem to believe, she is not. Take of that what you will. Wavy G 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Tuba myth article, its author and that controversy are irrelevant to the article on Stephanie Pui-Mun Law (regardless if the original author is the same). If articles were simply deleted whenever tainted by trolls there wouldn't be much left on Wikipedia to look at. Also, most people familiar with the fantasy genre would not question her notability; so if it's the notability of the fantasy art world itself that's in question, then there are many more articles than this that must be debated for deletion as well. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep See Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability for the concern about other articles. Her article stands on their own merits. That said, she gets a passing mention amounting to a page of text in a 2004 graduate thesis for a Home Economics (?!?!) degree, available from google scholar's cache here [29], and a page of text and four pages of example illustrations in a 112 page book from 2003 entitled The Art of Faery, available to those with google book accounts here [30]. The article also cites a profile at the CrescentBlues website. That website's "about us" page shwos that they pay for work, but doesn't say that reviews will be rejected for errors, and some other things on the site indicate that the editors have other day jobs. All of this isn't clear cut notability, but is enough reason for me to believe that she probably is notable to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit I've edited the article to now include a largely comprehensive (though still incomplete) list of accomplishments she's known for in the fantasy publishing industry with verifiable references. She's very prolific and her notability is without question. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Capezio[edit]

NN ballet-shop owner. Probably someone's grandfather. Nekohakase 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Capezio article - and they do make some of the best jazz shoes & Scottish dance ghillies I've worn ;) SkierRMH,08:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company this man founded is a highly respected maker of dance shoes (particularly for ballet) and may be the world's largest maker of dance shoes. I don't know much about this subject, but I edited the article to clarify his importance, add details, add references, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to merge the article into the company article because companies have a way of drifting away from their founders -- separate articles maintain the distinction between person and business. For the record, he isn't anyone's grandfather. He had no children. --orlady 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - Capezios are a widely-known and widely-used brand of dance shoe, and perhaps the uniqueness of the brand makes the creator particularly notable? I'm not sure if it shouldn't just be merged, though. My initial reaction is keep as basically notable creator of a very notable product.--Dmz5 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI, according to the article he had no children so he's nobody's grandfather :) --Dmz5 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having kids, isn't part of a requirement for nobility, but he did run what is a very large shoe company. Somitho 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Capezio article. Pastordavid 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Capezio was the ballet shoe maker in its time Alf photoman 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep founders of very larger or well-known companies are notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable as company founder, notable for contributions to field, received Coty Award in 1952. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Freud[edit]

Deletion nomination Finalist in some rap-battle radio station competition and that's about it. I would not call this a "major music competition" so this article fails WP:MUSIC. (Yes, thats right, the competition is just like the battlin' you saw on 8 Mile except its all run by Auntie Beeb). Bwithh 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BBC seems pretty notable to me... Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's one show on one BBC radio station. The BBC's media operations are huge and varied. There are all kinds of little contests run by different shows. Bwithh 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Somitho 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:MUSIC SkierRMH,08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything created by User:Yeanold Viskersenn as nonsense. Wavy G 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Music TSO1D 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above - The RSJ 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Sigmund Freud. Ohconfucius 07:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - with no independant reliable sources to base an article on in the article or this AfD, and the strong objection to the claim that breaking your school's record is an encyclopaedic achievement, there isn't much of a case for notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Findlay[edit]

non-notable. Nekohakase 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having a college athletics record is not enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has more than just records, she was a starter as a freshman on the national championship team and set/tied several school records. She more than meet WP:BIO. --MECU≈talk 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAlready proved notability at the national level, a young up and coming athlete--TrulyUnited 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Somitho 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting individual records and winning national championships in popular US college sports would certainly qualify as "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports", and thus pass WP:BIO Caknuck 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above is, in my view, plain wrong. WP:BIO is not met by setting an RBI record for an individual school team, and simply being a member of a championship team is also insufficient. Clearly, clearly fails WP:BIO. Redirect if necessary to Michigan_Wolverines. Eusebeus 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like some of the earlier voters (discussers? commenters?) didn't understand the article. It says she broke school records, not national records. Every school in the world has a school record, and the newer the school's athletics program is, the easier it is to break that record. I'm not saying Findlay isn't a good athlete; it seems pretty clear she must be. But her record is definitely not noteworthy on a Wikipedia-article scale. --Quuxplusone 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), WP:NFT and WP:BALLS for that matter. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free tater movement and associated pages[edit]

None of these article titles produce any Google hits whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this whole thing might be somebody's fantasy story. Scob e ll302 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The Free Tater Movement was a grassroots effort origionally started in Goshen, New York on December 13, 2006". Clearly a case of WP:NFT. MER-C 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Laughable "grassroots" movement started by three kids with too much time on their hands. Article's talk page provided the much sought-after "proof" -- A MySpace page [31]. Well, I just had to follow that link, and I found Freetater has a whopping 19 friends (and yes, two of them are Jeremiah and Jim). As a rule of thumb, I think you should have at least 75 friends before you can be allowed to write your own vanity article. Wavy G 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Wikipedia is not for things made up on myspace one day/WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Delete them all, it's not April Fools Day. Somitho 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN - Funny, not encyclopedic, probably fake, but suitable for BJAODN. :3 Pumeleon^T 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of what he was locked up for... maybe aggravated TP'ing? Anyway... I stuck speedy delete tags on all these nonsense articles. Tubezone 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all above... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school this past Wednesday. Would support CSD A7 as {{db-group}}, {{db-bio}}, etc. candidates. Not even funny enough for BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Pastordavid 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all then shred, fry and serve as tater tots. SkierRMH,08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice; there is clear consensus to delete this article as partly covered in other articles, partly dangerous original research. Howrealisreal doesn't appear to dispute that the current article is a liability, only that crack cocaine and hip hop is a notable topic - which itself is more or less undisputed in this AfD. So if he feels that he can write a verified article in its place, then he's welcome to do so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack cocaine and hip hop[edit]

This article is in gross violation of WP:V/WP:NOR & WP:BLP. The article can be broken down into three sections: "Crack Cocaine" contains basic information on the drug that is covered in greater detail at Cocaine; " The Crack Epidemic & African American Street Culture" likewise deals with a topic already covered at Crack epidemic; "Crack Cocaine & Hip Hop" & "Modern Hip Hop & Cocaine" are comprised entirely of unsourced original research and potentially libelous accusations. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This page is certainly.. interesting. Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only offensive but stereotypical. Needs a NPOV should it ever be explored again. Somitho 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete V & NOR & BLP & WTF. SkierRMH,08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 15:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per aboves. Deizio talk 16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure liability... Chuchunezumi 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and others. Doc Tropics 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom RZ heretic 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Crack cocaine had-- and still has-- a clear and verifiable impact on hip-hop culture and rap music. There are plenty of books written about this, for example: Of The Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip Hop by Imani Perry explicitly states that the birth of gangsta rap is directly related to the crack explosion; Stand and Deliver: political activism, leadership, and hip hop culture by Yvonne Bynoe notes specifically that hip-hop music was the first to provided a voice to the voiceless of those in the inner-city crack epidemic, where mainstream news never dared to go; and furthermore the scholarly article Method in the Madness: Exploring the Boundaries of Identity in Hip-Hop Performativity by Christopher Smith points to hits by Public Enemy, Raekwon, and Ghostface in regards to the prominence crack sale and abuse plays in modern urban American history. How can you say there's no notable connection when the emergence of this drug evolved a whole genre of music? --Howrealisreal 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the connection between crack cocaine and hip-hop music doesn't exist. While saying that the drug's emergence is mainly responsible for the musical genre may be going too far, there is definitely a long history of early hip-hop musicians having been influenced by the crack epidemic or by being involved in the drug trade. However this article, right now, is full of speculation, sweeping generalizations, and unreferenced libel. Many artists are accused of committing illegal acts without so much as a reference to publicly disclosed police records. Others are simply assumed to have specific views of society and the drug trade because of subjective third-party analysis. Each wikipedia article must bear the burdens of neutrality and verifiability, crack cocaine and hip hop does not. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. I haven't edited the article as of yet, but I believe that the topic is notable and there are sources that can be added to make it more encyclopedic. I'll work on improving the article (maybe today, maybe tomorrow) depending on when I can find some time. I hope we can spare the article from deletion in the near future. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Get your self a music mag job and you can spew any kind of opinion you want.Leave it off the Wiki please.EnabledDanger 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not my "opinion" as you say. The article was nominated for deletion because it was claimed to be original research and unverifiable. Please remain civil and don't make personal attacks against me for researching the multiple reliable sources required for inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, including your bias. Notability is not subjective. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep see Howrealisreal's reasons. --Crucible Guardian 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janus (Paul Kelly)[edit]

Insignficant professional wrestler. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Seems a bit important, I guess. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not even the slightest notability has been established by the article for his pro wrestling career. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO among others.BooyakaDell 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. --Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well - crz crztalk 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Somitho 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BIO & V. SkierRMH,08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was set up by a 'friend' who thought it was funny to have me on here and I found out today when they showed me the stub. I am an avid user of Wiki and agree 100% that I am not notable enough, Im a UK worker in a small, insignificant federation and have no wish to be here yet.: Paul Kelly (not a Wiki member). 20/12/06 17.54

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hammond[edit]

This is the third time this article has been nominated for deletion. Despite his conviction on hacking charges, this is a non-notable subject, with which Wikipedia should not be concerned. Moreover, there are many NPOV points contained within the article as has been repeatedly pointed out. Archaios 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article's already deleted..? Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wait, it only appears that way here because the template links it here. Delete then.
Comment - I just realized the template skewed my previous comment up as well. Oh well, you fixed it. --Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I think. It was deleted in both the other AfDs. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep after looking at the content. Four seperate sources is plenty for verifiability, and two major newspapers do it for notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - minor mentions even in a major newspaper does not necessarily warrant a WP article/bio. More to the point, there are several assertions within the article which are disputable at best, not referenced, and the details regarding his arrest and trial have been around since the initial creation of this article - leading me to believe it is not at all relevant to Wikipedia or his notability. Archaios 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being referenced is grounds for cleanup. Only the references not existing is grounds for deletion, and they obviously exist. And I don't call a front page article a "minor mention", even if it is in a fringe magazine. For me, three non-trivial mentions establishes notability, and he definitely has those. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - in that case, every criminal in the media history of the world should be covered be Wikipedia. I believe the pertinence of the newspaper articles relates to his ideology, rather than his cause or account per se -- indeed, their disputations of the so-called hacktivist philosophy seems to indicate this, in which case I believe that such a subject may deserve a mention in Hacktivism, or Anarchism, but not merit their own biographical article. I must mention that I am personally linked to this case, and I have great misgivings regarding its content _and_ notability. The front-page article existed in the previous incarnation, which was deleted; it appears that such fringe magazines do not constitute notability in this instance. Archaios 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - As noted, the "front page" article is in a local "fringe" paper. The Reader is a self-described "features" rag. Not a newspaper like the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun Times. Also, if someone media-whores enough, does that automatically make them notable? If the other "hacker" of recent vintage from Chicago, William Konopka (a guy who was busted for blowing up power stations and amassing stores cyanide, and actually made front page in the Chicago news rags) doesn't meet the requirements for Wikipedia notability, neither does this guy. TheElocutioner
    - I don't know what you're trying to prove with your "If this other guy isn't notable, neither is he" argument. Maybe I think the other guy is notable? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough for nobility. Somitho 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somitho, assuming of course that he meant "notability" rather than what he actually said. Mr. Hammond isn't noble in any sense of the word. :p Rogue 9 08:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is notable as proven by the links listed on the page and the many other 3rd party sources out there. TSO1D 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am completely in agreement with all arguments for keep noted noted above. Even more, this article expands some key matters that the HTS revision article touches briefly touches on. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple, non-trivial references in independent sources satisfies the primary criterion of WP:N. Ccscott 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and WikifyAlf photoman 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI created this article in it's current incarnation and am happy to see significant support to keep. I have been a WP editor for a year. I have never engaged in edit wars. I have had nothing to do with any unpleasantness in this matter. I created this article last week after going to hackthissite.org to inquire about testing port scanning software. It was there I first learned about Mr. Hammond. I thought his story was interesting and sought more information on WP. I was surprised to find no article as it seemed a inherently notable topic. So I wrote a stubbish one. I made no reference to any earlier versions, as I did not know they existed. It is highly unlikely that this article bears much in common with any deleted article. I have sourced the article appropriately for a stub and feel the article should not be deleted. I don't mean to make it difficult, and I understand that an article about hackers and parody protesters could be draw people who might be difficult. But the fact remains it is notable. The recent plea/sentencing also adds material. I understand that JH is young, and an article about criminal activity that has not been proven/admitted is problematic. With the plea entered this is no longer the case. I do not have a negative opinion of JH. If anything I mildly admire him. I have no animosity toward his victims. I believe in debate and free speech and believe this topic raises interesting pointsEdivorce 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realize this has already been deleted in the past-and that my suggestion to keep it will in all likelihood be disregarded-but I feel it necessary to reiterate my point-of-view, which is that Hammond-especially with his recent conviction-is a notable subject. He has been arrested repeatedly-in a very public manner covered by local news sources-and his criminal behavior has been covered nationally by a number of well-known journalists, bloggers and political activists, e.g. Michelle Malkin. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I addressed the issue of The Blade article on the general talk page. Please do not re-add it before reading my comments. Thank you. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from plumber in chicgao —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andynorgate (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2006.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two references were added a couple of days ago which have not been discussed [32] [33]; however, they are both pretty clearly 'passing mentions' and do not demonstrate notability to the extent of invalidating the numerous arguments for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Avenue Cooperative[edit]

Another housing co-op but its connection to the founder of House on the Rock may confer minimal notability. I'm leaning toward no but can be persuaded. Otto4711 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Building, not co-op, has connection to father of founder (it was his son who made it a tourist attraction). That's two leaps away from notability in my book. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really fit the title, does it? But even as a corp, is still nn. SkierRMH,08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

As the initial author of this article, I clearly may be biased. But there are more references that discuss the co-op, and would like an opportunity to present them and demonstrate its noteworthiness.

Regarding the Alex Jordan Sr. connection: It's true that the architectural history of the house predates the co-op, and the organization and the building are not legally identical, but where else would one write that information? Could there be a separate article about the house? Since Summit is a housing co-op, as a practical matter the organization can't be separated from the building. Cephal-odd 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't see the notability. Might you point it out Cephal-odd? Somitho 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable, sorry. Eusebeus 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable "just a building"... WP:NOT a list of campus locations. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cephal-odd: I'm not arguing that the information should be in separate articles. I'm arguing that the co-op is not notable in itself, and the connection to Jordan is not a second route to establishing notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is not notable in it's own right, should go. Moreschi 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know a lot about Summit Ave but i know it has a long and unique history in the madison co-op scene, being independant and different in location and culture than many of the other co-ops. re: the building, in the madison area, any building associated with any alex jordan is notable, particularly beautiful houses on top of the highest hill in madison. the author of the article, who presumably knows a lot about this co-op, says he has proof of notability; i think the article should be given a chance, especially as a notability tag was never put on the article previous to the deletion tag and it has only been around for about 2 months.Acornwithwings 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no asserting of notability per this discussion. If that changes in the future, the article can be restored. Vegaswikian 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_sets_of_unrelated_songs_with_identical_titles[edit]

This list violates WP:NOT#DIR. This list is not bound together by a single, important topic. There's nothing worthwhile to be said about songs that happen to be named the same that warrants an article of its own, so there's no reason to list these songs on Wikipedia. Bjart 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, unmaintainable, ugly, the like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was fun contributing to this list, but it's not encyclopedic; there's nothing special about songs which share the same title unless they have Vverifiably caused confusion, and list of songs with such similar titles that they have confused people is just ridiculous. I've also listed this nom on the daily AfD log. Graham87 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graham87. —ShadowHalo 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Split Infinity ^(talk) 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. As Graham87 has said, there's really nothing remotely informative or useful about this. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for the article. Somitho 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - listcruft. SkierRMH,08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graham87. Danny Lilithborne 12:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. TSO1D 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrously strong delete Consensus has already emerged, so my !vote wasn't exactly "necessary," but this is such unencyclopedic garbage that I had to speak up. -- Kicking222 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've been waiting for someone to nominate this. Punkmorten 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deléte It's an interesting list, but really, this isn't enyclopedic. The RSJ 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please can we do something about this growing list-fetishism spreading through Wikipedia? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a user subpage. Not encyclopedic, but not without interest either.Bjones 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nah. That would only take up precious Wikipedia space. But if someone could alert me before this page is deleted, I'd be more than happy to archive this "unencyclopedic garbage" in my website. Thank you in advance. (I love "unencyclopedic garbage". :)) Doberdog 06:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the current vote tally, you can start anytime. Nothing short of a Christmas miracle will save this article. :)Bjones 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can delete it anytime. I've got the list. Thanks. Doberdog 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DaveApter 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It was fun while it lasted though. -MrFizyx 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: AfD rarely has to make judgements on how well-written an article is. With no case for notability (and five days - seven in this case - is long enough to show non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources), the result is delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford Day School[edit]

Non-notability; see WP:SCHOOL, etc. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I was unsure what to do with this article, as it is a school that fails to provide why it's notable. However, due to how well the article is formatted and worded on the first try I am inclined to keep for the time being, allowing for a bit more time to let the author assert notability. I recommend that this AfD last the entire five days and not be closed before then to allow time for the author to fix any problems with the article However, a major problem, beyond its lack of notability is the fact that it sounds like an advertisement. Pumeleon^T 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to have to agree with Pumeleon; it was a great first article, and the author should be allowed the time to correct it. _{The previous unsigned comment was added by Somitho on 06:22, December 17, 2006 UTC}
I edited in a few rounds to make it more clear exactly how I've changed the original article. I actually was a student there, and I apparently disguised my distaste for the place a little too well. Look on the bright side - I didn't try to include a section on the general emotional state of the upper school students. Ignis 07:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is better sourced and the topic is much more notable than many other school articles. TSO1D 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this school stands out from other special schools. Also looking at the article you would have to stretch the truth a little too much to claim that this is a well formatted article. It consists mainly of small 4-5 line sections. The entire first section is just a copy from the school's website. MartinDK 16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My only comment about the formatting was that it was good for being a first revision of a new editor. Obviously it has its flaws, but those are being worked on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pumeleon (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete another run of the mill school that is simply unnotable. Eusebeus 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Pumeleon that the AfD should run the entire five days—which is the usual procedure anyway. I'm willing to change my vote if the article is expanded to include good, verifiable source citations to reliable sources that show that there is widespread interest in the school and that it is considered to be of some special importance in educational circles. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted, Wikipedia not for adverts. Moreschi 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the school looks uniquely notable not sure erasing is the best option here Yuckfoo 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trixbox[edit]

Merged to List of Asterisk PBX distributions BJ^Talk 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undefined FirefoxMan 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, still unreferenced (1 link) except for company site... smells like spam. SkierRMH,08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Browncoats' Backup Bash[edit]

The result was deletion, as unsourced. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a Browncoats forum, 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}}.

Contested speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-17 06:03Z

Delete as non-notable event. A search yields some hits, but mostly just blogs, fora, and few if any reliable sources for an article. A sci-fi fan gathering attended by a couple of hundred people is hardly encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:46, 17 December 2006 *(UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event, without actual independent news sources, just self-produced blogs and postings. I was a fan of Firefly, but such material is best kept to fan sites. While events like this may be important to particular group of fans, they are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. As noted at WP:CORP, "The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself." Even the still-under-discussion proposed notability guideline for Fandom states, "Generally, a regional convention would only be considered a major convention if it had 1000 or more members each year" This one claims (without any verification) attendance of "approx 375". The best bet would be to merge some portion to Browncoats. --Leflyman^Talk 07:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Leflyman & nom. SkierRMH,08:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was just looking at that article yesterday thinking it needed to be nominated... Otto4711 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete Even as a Browncoat myself, I must admit this event lacks sufficient sourcing.-- danntm ^T _C 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Send this out in to the black - this shindig wasn't notable. I attended Serenity^3, which had over 600 attendees and that wasn't notable enough for an entry on WP. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Disclaimer and disclosure: I was at the event. In the main it's curious to me that the criteria I see most often for deletion on this item is size, with second place seeming to go to a lack of mainstream media coverage. I can't control consensus, but notability shouldn't be restricted to the size of an event. That a planned event of 500 people gets cancelled at the last possible moment and is replaced by a fan-organized substitute, also at the last moment, seems notable from an everyday standpoint. Serenity^3 wasn't notable in that sense because it was a planned event which happened as planned. The B3 was different, and therefore notable. As for verifiability, my complaint there is probably more as to flaws in that policy overall than with the concept -- e.g., if the mainstream doesn't notice something, there should be a way to still consider it verifiable, such as the existence of dozens of first-hand reports from attendees, who aren't at fault if no acceptbly-mainstream source has bothered to verify an event. Theonetruebix 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:— Theonetruebix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Leflyman^Talk 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree that this event can be considered notable due to the uniqueness in it's organizing. I've added to the article the links to CNET and WIRED which discussed the event. Earth2Kim 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being blogged about at Wired != Wired article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is notable for the unique manner in which occured. Interestingstuffadder 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the unique nature of this event coupled with continuing media coverage in two major publications in addition to the major blogs already listed compell me to vote keep. Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Unique" is not a criterion for inclusion. Also, where is the media coverage? The only sources I can find are the two blogs mentioned in the article, which hardly meet WP:RS. And WP:BIO really does not apply to events. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually uniqueness implies notability which is at the heart of WP:BIO. Also WP:CORP is being applied by some users but it is not relevant to this kind of event.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:BIO is about the notability of biographies of individuals; it does not deal with events or activities of non-notable fans. "Uniqueness" is not a notability factor-- recognition in published reliable sources is. I imagine we could all make a claim for being "unique". --Leflyman^Talk 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Firefly fandom. While it sounds like it was a great party replacing what would have been yet another fan convention, what's notable about it is how it came to be, as a self-organizing event, and as that it should be remembered. People doing good things is usually not considered to be newsworthy, btw; the cancellation would have gotten press (probably did, in fact) but that was lost in the success of the Backup Bash. While it's surely not policy to "reward" good behavior, deleting the article, rather than merging it, is surely punishing it. htom 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a Browncoat; I was there; I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia. Nightsky 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lefly. You can't take the WP:RS from meeee. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t20:11z
Keep, per JohhnyBGood. The Wookieepedian 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I don't really think the event itself was notable enough to earn its own article. Within the fandom, it's notable, and I think the mention in the Browncoats article is probably more appropriate. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable event. No other convention in the history of scifi has been organized that fast and that completely. SFBayHome 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Based on policies and guidelines, how has notability been asserted? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marsia Powers Dec 24, 2006

This was an historical event within Fandom.

Regarding media, here's two links to media, CNET and Dattona Beach News

http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6142354.html?part=rss&tag=2327-10784-0&subj=news&tag=cnetfd.blog http://blogs.news-journalonline.com/247/2006/12/why_we_love_the_fireflyserenit.html And a news Video http://blog.quantummechanix.com/?p=16 And here's how I explained the event to a friend....

Imagine you prepared for a group trip to Europe. You paid for your air, hotel and entertainment. Depending on what your itinerary, you pre-paid anywhere from $1000 to $5,000 up front. The trip is sold out, which means the organizer (who has a good reputation and has put together this type of event many times before) has been paid for everything. You get on the plane and when you land, you find out that other than the air and hotel that you are paying for directly, nothing on the itinerary has been paid for. You and a group of 500 people are milling around the hotel lobby not knowing what to do. There is no one there to help you and from what you understand, the company that booked the itinerary does not have the money to refund you.

There was a fan convention where 500 people from around the world paid for a weekend of socializing with actors, directors, writers, musicians and other Industry folk connected with the series Firefly/Serenity at the Burbank Hilton. People spent anywhere from $1000 to $5,000 including air, hotel and the convention itself. At the last minute, actually in the afternoon prior to Day One, while most people who were coming from outside of Southern California were in the air or in their cars driving down, the convention was canceled, with no refunds in sight. Seems even the studio people and the Hilton were left in the lurch, w/o being paid thousands of dollars.

The California Browncoats put together a Booster Backup Bash (the company's name was Booster Events) and entertained the attendees from Friday through Sunday on a shoestring. Most of the Industry folk came to hang out with the fans for free, Clare Kramer (Glory in season 5 of Buffy) and her husband opened their new Hollywood Blvd restaurant (La Cantina) 2 weeks early so we could have a party (again where the Industry people joined us), people and companies helped us with getting locations to have the daytime events (the Hilton would not/could not release their convention rooms to us) and paid for tour buses so we could move over 350 people (some people didn't come at all, others arrived and left -boy were they pissed they left). Cash donations totaling $6500 came in from Browncoats around the world to help pay for the non-convention. In other words, we made lemons out of lemonade.

So now imagine that same group trip I wrote about at the beginning. While the tourists are in the lobby crying about their ruined trip and how they saved for this special event, strangers start to show up in the lobby. They help you with contacting friends and family. They tell you they will, out of the goodness of their heart, make a substitute itinerary for you for the weekend, keep your group busy seeing the sites, meeting people, playing games, transporting you around, even hosting a major party in a fancy restaurant at no cost to you since you're already out thousands of dollars. And other strangers donate money to a site to help towards paying for the new itinerary and transportation. Strangers. And after you have a weekend that although wasn't what you paid for ended up being more fun during, those strangers wait around until the last person is on their way back home.

Do you think strangers would do that for strangers? As a cohesive group? Of course not. The Browncoats did.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 add the sources presented in this AfD on the article itself, thanks! - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Nahmad[edit]

Non-notability; see WP:BIO. Just because someone's extremely rich doesn't mean he's notable. Almost no information is provided (three sentences), so I can't accurately judge the notability, but from what I can see, this article should be deleted. Split Infinity ^(talk) 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Being rich might not, but amassing a collection of 200+ Picasso's might. I am staying neutral. Somitho 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is an influential art dealer, as evidenced in articles from artnet.com, The Financial Times and Bloomberg.com. Article needs major work, though. Caknuck 07:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable at least as an art collector. Has to be verified/referenced, though. GregorB 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and expand, source and improve. Nom's reason is untrue. frummer 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I second frummer and Caknuck Alf photoman 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in my opinion, the quick answer is money has nothing to do with importance however how it is used may affect the importance factor. If he was to be some sort of great philantropist, maybe, but all this article basically says is there was some person that made billions in the art business. It says nothing about him being the artist, all it says is he was just wealthy making it non-notable in my opinion. Atlantis Hawk 05:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per caknuck there are reliable sources available for this Yuckfoo 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Some of the paintings he bought might be. If there are any entries for the paintings, his name could be mentioned in those entries.TruthGal 02:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (no conc) Whilst the arithmetic is borderline, the keep case much is stronger. The deletioners seem focused on the google notability of the term, but the article isn't about the term but the phenomenon, which verifiably exists. (if renaming is wanted, it does not need deletion). There seem plenty of citations available on the article - so that objection has been addressed. Clean-up required though. Doc^g 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq diaspora[edit]

non notable term see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iraq+diaspora%22 PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism, 40 ghits. MER-C 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above GabrielF 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - neologism & V problems. SkierRMH,08:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; relatively unknown neologism. TSO1D 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, source cited does not even use the term. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. gidonb 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --GHcool 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jayjg. Beit Or 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jayjg. Merge with Arab diaspora; it doesn't pass muster solo, but as part of a larger article, it could be helpful. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe retitle it to Iraqi diaspora. Shouldn't there be an article about the diaspora of all major countries? For example Greek diaspora and others at Diasporas[34]. Note also that there is an unfinished article at Arab diaspora, perhaps it should be rerouted and divided by country.. It's a worthy topic, if it gets worked on. Dan Carkner 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Somitho 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Its not a new word, it can't be, because its a phrase, not a single word. There should be articles on the Irish diaspora, Jewish diaspora, and Chinese diaspora, and there are. Change it to Iraqi diaspora for harmonization. Look here for a dozen other diasporas: Diaspora#List of notable diasporas or Category:Diasporas. Did anyone bother to read the articles on diaspora, or did they just read the two sentences in the Iraqi article? Google the proper term (Iraqi diaspora) and you get 497,000 hits. Please do some homework, and don't just read what others have written. Use your minds, not just your fingers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- actually, google the quoted phrase "Iraqi diaspora", omitting the Wikipedia entries, there are about 900 hits. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (iraqi diaspora -wikipedia) = 437,000 Ghits without quotations. Three well sourced references should be sufficient. This article has not been indexed by Wikipedia or Google yet. If I remember there is (or was) a 30 day (roughly) period for an article to get in the Google index in a mutual agreement with Google. Also Wikipedia doesn't index articles for what used to a be a week or so, to make sure spam and nonsense can be deleted. My search is without the quotation marks, I have moved them to parenthesis here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks specify the search for "iraqi diaspora" only; your 437,000 hits are for articles with the word "iraqi" and the word "diaspora"...but not necessarily for "iraqi diaspora". -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That is correct! I am not denying that at all. Yet the articles are still concerning the Iraqi diaspora even though they may read: "Our aims are to encourage a healthy dialogue and to promote freedom of thought for Iraqis, both in Iraq and Diaspora (almahjer)." [35] "Diaspora Iraqis" gives an additional 300 hits. And as I said earlier, three good references should be enough, but you have to do research and not just kneejerk deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assume good faith -- we're quite capable of doing the research ourselves, I imagine many of us automatically do that when something is said to a neologism; nobody likes to be accused of kneejerk anything. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and I think some of these other articles in Category:Diasporas need to be looked at as well. 6SJ7 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? Did you read them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment kneejerk or groupthink fits, so I use it. 11 people commented on it as a neologism without taking the time to find and use the correct search term. I agree "we're ... capable of doing the research ourselves", but did anyone before Dan did on the 12 comment left? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dickie boy; have you met WP:CIV? Or her friend WP:NPA? How about their pal WP:AGF? It's all fun and laughs to be a pedant; yes? Mayhap you should get a blog and do so...but NOT here. Uhn-kay? Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling me "Dickie boy" an example of civility? or an example of irony? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't a personal attack. Maybe he was a bit blunt about it but it's true that this valid topic was slated for deletion without any open reasoning going on.Dan Carkner 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to inventory his comments for you, Dan:

Did anyone bother to read the articles on diaspora, or did they just read the two sentences in the Iraqi article? - - insinuation of bad faith on the part of those who have voted to delete.

Please do some homework, and don't just read what others have written. Use your minds, not just your fingers - insinuation of bad faith, in addition to insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.

...but you have to do research and not just kneejerk deletion - - insinuation of bad faith/insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.

Which ones? Did you read them?' - insinuation of bad faith.

kneejerk or groupthink fits, so I use it. - personal attack, albeit a mild one.

11 people commented on it as a neologism without taking the time to find and use the correct search term - insinuation of bad faith/insulting our intelligence; a personal attack.

Should I post these on his talk page, with appropriate warnings; or will you perhaps have a talk with him about his obvious issues with civility? I don't think it's quite time for an RfC; but Mr. Norton is on a slippery slope, in my humble opinion. I understand that he is a strong inclusionist, and I respect his views, even as he does not seem to respect any but the inclusionist viewpoint. I am certainly no deletionist, and I don't deny that (as you've pointed out) this article is a worthy topic, if it gets a bit more fleshed out. But I don't like being preached to by an individual who isn't even trying to be polite in their accusations that those who have voted to delete the article are acting in bad faith, having done no research whatsoever. It makes me not want to listen to even polite, intelligent arguments such as yours. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Written with WP:RS sources and is written in WP:NPOV manner and is a WP:N term. It should not be deleted. Thanks RaveenS 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge keep if enough references can be found, although Iraqi refugees might be a better name for the article. Also one can merge the information into Arab diaspora, that article really needs to be expanded. --64.230.127.234 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename, tag as NPOV. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Rimal neighborhood massacre[edit]

No RS, notability not established, POV title. I inquired regarding those issue but was only prompted to do an afd, instead of being given any answers, so i am obliging. --Striver 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless remedied.--Striver 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood shooting or similar GabrielF 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood killings, as "shooting" is ambiguous concerning the result (was anyone killed?) I chose "killing" because it is the term the New York Times is using.[36] — coelacan talk — 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable and never will be. user:tasc --132.73.80.117 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and International Herald Tribune coverage all add up to "non-notable", right? Rename to 2006 Rimal neighborhood killings. — coelacan talk — 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is non-notable because it's non-notable and wp is not a news agency. P.S. you're repeating yourself. user:tasc --132.73.80.117 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and NPOV. Seems notable and sourced enough to me, just needs renaming and some NPOVing. delldot | talk 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the above renamings do you prefer? (Or a third suggestion?) — coelacan talk — 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "shootings" and "killings" are both ok, but I would lean ever so slightly toward "shootings". I think "shooting" is used in the sense of killing often enough that it wouldn't really be ambiguous, and "killings" sounds a little weird to me. I'll think on it and see if I can come up with a third suggestion. delldot | talk 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep given that's noms initial problem (notability) now addressed. then discuss naming & put it up for move. (please note: no prejudice to nominator) ⇒ bsnowball 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per above. Somitho 12:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable event and sources meet RS. 85.65.211.177 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn I am not 100% sure if the article is notable in itself, but considering coverage from 3 RS, i give it the benefit of a doubt. So i withdraw the nom on the condition that the article is renamed to "shooting" or the like. --Striver 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well whether it's "killings" or "shootings" it ought to be plural. there were multiple victims. — coelacan talk — 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Lucky 6.9 as hoax/nonsense

Kenny Turner[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails WP:RS. I cannot find the reference in Tracks magazine that is indicated. For being one of the "50 Most Influintial (sic) People in Surfing", "kenny turner" +surfing gets 10 Google hits, most of which are completely irrelevant. Either does not meet WP:BIO or is a WP:HOAX. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I'd say it's a conflict of interest too, due to tone and article history. MER-C 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting as a hoax. Gonna whack the knuckles of Our Kenny for this one. :) - Lucky 6.9 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.U.S.H. (Young Buck album)[edit]

nonsense, unreferenced, old Evan Reyes 06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it to make room for moving Buck the World to this namespace. MER-C 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... SkierRMH,08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Somitho 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil and Lil'D[edit]

Nothing of note here; almost nonsense. Deleted twice only to be reposted. Noticing this I speedy-delete tagged it; the tag was removed without comment. Akihabara 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this TV show isn't notable enough to have articles on each episode. MER-C 07:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible salt given 2x deletion. SkierRMH,08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per Vivaldi. Danny Lilithborne 12:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was I who removed the tag, but I replaced it with db-nn. I only did that because it technically fell unter db-nn, not db-repost. -WarthogDemon 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Somitho 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Builder[edit]

Contested PROD. I'm not quite sure what this is. On the surface, it looks like a text dump from something. A closer reading seems to indicate that the title refers to self-proclaimed "voice builder" Gary Catona and that the article is a PR piece of some sort. Unencyclopedic in tone and nature, and possibly even a copyvio of something. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be a straight copyvio from one source. However, it's clearly a PR piece that doesn't make much sense. SkierRMH,08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Somitho 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degenatron[edit]

Article is dedicated to a non-playable, fictional video game from the Grand Theft Auto series' universe. It is not notable for any reason. Y2kcrazyjoker4 07:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable meta video game. MER-C 08:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (and as non-game player, I was left with just - WtF. SkierRMH,08:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (and as game player, I was left with just - WtF. Koweja 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Degenatron was sufficiently fleshed out, both in the GTA games and in the real world thanks to Rockstar's official Degenatron website, to sustain an article. It is relevant in real life as Rockstar's subtle counter-attack against critics who accuse videogames in general, and GTA games in particular, of pushing kids into committing crimes. And unlike what Y2kcrazyjoker4 said, it is actually playable, as there are Degenatron emulators out there. The article itself is well written, with an out-of-universe perspective, and well referenced. It is well worth keeping in Wikipedia. -- Ritchy 15:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , actually, and I do mean to destroy all of the above opinions for deletion when I say this, these are real games. You can play them at dgenatron.com , which is a Rockstar Games website. For this reason, and because it's part of an insanely popular videogame series, this article should stay. Chopper Dave 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep It looks well done. An addition to the encyclopedia. Just H 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Degenatron is playable online, but it is not playable in any of the GTA games. It's simply a fake video game used in radio advertising and making a cameo appearance as a texture at the taxi company. Doesn't there need to be some sort of established notability in order to have this article? What's to stop people from creating Wikipedia articles for Cluckin Bell and Sprunk? Y2kcrazyjoker4 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If people can write solid, sourced articles on Cluckin Bell or Sprunk, why should we be trying to stop them? -- Ritchy 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ritchy. --- RockMFR 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay as a subsection for a mention in a GTA article, but not substantive enough a topic (and crufty) for an encyclopedia article. More appropriate for a GTA wiki. Bwithh 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's bad enough Wikipedia is full of real video games, it certainly doesn't need to cover fictional ones. Wasted Time R 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ahem. It's "bad enough" Wikipedia covers videogames? Care to explain? -- Ritchy 22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, that's a bit of a jerkish thing to say. The GTA games have sold something like 40 million copies in North America alone- tell me that's unimportant. -- Kicking222 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ritchy. -- Kicking222 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above - The RSJ 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a published video game, and this is an encyclopedia. Somitho 12:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a published video game. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some notability, but it's still not an actual video game (or console). -- Kicking222 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it was a published video game, then how come the guys at Gamestop look at me like I have 2 heads when I ask if they have any copies of Degenatron for PS2? Y2kcrazyjoker4 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Looks like that Somitho meant that GTA is a "published video game" --GreyCat 08:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lots of people play GTA and hear that "degenatron" praisings. Whether it's a real or fictional game, it's a clear fact that such an entity exists, and I think it's a good thing that a guesser may open up Wikipedia and get to know all the details. Really, the GTA universe is very tightly intermixed with real-life (GTA:VC - with sunny 80s in USA). Lots of people just won't know if "degenatron" is real reference to some weird 80s early game or just a parody - and then the Wikipedia should provide that sort of information. --GreyCat 08:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Get Ready To Bumble[edit]

Article is dedicated to a fictional playable video game in the Grand Theft Auto series' universe. It is not notable in any, way, shape, or form, and sounds as if it was written by a 3 year old. Y2kcrazyjoker4 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable meta video game. MER-C 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn game. (same as prior article). SkierRMH,08:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grand Theft Auto. Just H 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Wasted Time R 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About 1/100 as important as Degenatron. A very small part of a very large game. -- Kicking222 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Degenatron's AFD. Somitho 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Grand Theft Auto - Insanephantom 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, nominator contacted. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Games Journalism[edit]

I've been wanting to merge this into the Computer and video game journalism article for a while now, but perhaps others feel this is notable enough. Personally I feel it should be merged. jaco♫plane 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 07:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google investigation shows up little usage outside the blogsphere. MER-C 08:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but if Jacoplane wants to merge something into Comp & V game - go for it! SkierRMH 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Somitho 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm OK with it in the main article. Even though its mostly Kieron Gillen bullshit. Note that other more developed forms of journalism don't bother trying to make up new words to describe itself, something which Gillen does on every pretentious piece of tosh he writes. - hahnch e n 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too much blog bullshit to exist on its own. --- RockMFR 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Puxian[edit]

Notability and conflict of interest. Claims to notability seem to be being one of several artists having a 9/11 memorial painting hanging at St. Paul's Chapel for an exhibition there. Article has mostly been edited by User:Vpwaves, who's only other contributions are adding Vivian Puxian to Vivian and using Vivian Puxian as an example in the Artist article. The article contains several unverifiable claims. Delta Tango • Talk 07:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:V. SkierRMH,08:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH. Somitho 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, nem. con. A well-argued nomination with no gainsayers. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Jalin[edit]

non-notable / vanity TruthGal 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO WP:VAIN

Seems like a non-notable / vanity page. The three references cited include a link that's dead (http://www.diald.com/Models/2004Interviews/01JanInterview.htm/) and the subject's own web page.

The subject's own web page is a membership-based soft-core porn site ("Here's the second part to the webcam video I made last week. In this one, I just finished cooking and do a sexy dance for you.").

The "interview" cited on www.modfxmodels.com has a link to the subject's "gallery," which then prompts for payment. I thought maybe she was a famous internet porn girl I was unaware of, but then I did a Wikipedia search of the first 10 "models" on the modfxmodels page with Flo Jalin and none of them have Wikipedia pages (no Wikipedia page for Flor Bermudez, Sophi Berglund, Lisa Angeline, Kymberle, Luana Lani, Jessica Burciaga, Ann Poll or Vanessa Valdez).

Article also claims that subject was Miss Hawaiian Tropics (sic). The reference for this is the subject's own website. I tried to independently corroborate her Hawaiian Tropic titles, but a search for "Flo Jalin" on http://www.pageant.com turns up nothing.

The link to her interview at the IGN website works, though a search of that site seems to indicate that she's a car show / video game show model. Is car show model + soft-core porn site = famous enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia? I'm just asking...

Delete per WP:V and הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים (Eccl 1). SkierRMH,08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO. FiggyBee 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Somitho 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom -- Whpq 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTAGuides.com[edit]

Non-notable web forum failing WP:WEB. Article information seems to be unverifiable or original research. I requested sources 1.5 months ago and got no responses. Was previously deleted here. Delete as unverifiable, OR, and failing WP:WEB. Wickethewok 07:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB. No WP:RS indicating notability. Admins, is this a {{db-g4}}-able repost, or a substantially different article? --Kinu ^t/_c 08:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its different, so not g4-able. Wickethewok 08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, alexa = 1,013,753: [37]. MER-C 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:WEB. SkierRMH,08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, but possibly mention the Jack Thompson incident in one of the articles on him. Koweja 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find a reliable published source for it that is. Wickethewok 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Possible external link in GTA article? Somitho 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB.--RWR8189 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and WP:WEB. Salt due to recreation. Anomo 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Only desperate claim to notability is an attempt to ride on the coat-tails of the Jack Thomson/GTA situation. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. The Kinslayer 10:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, article needs cleanup. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall[edit]

This article about Trevor Marshall needs to be removed. He is a scientist who is currently working on a hypothesis that has not been embraced by peer based review. I feel that he or someone close to hime is trying to push his case using wikipedia.
1. WP:NOT#OR
2. WP:NOT#SOAP
Also refer to Talk:sarcoidosis
The following sources have been critical of Trevor Marshall: [[38]](Authoritative BMJ source) [[39]]
His own websites, including a resume are: [[40]] [[41]] Note the similarity to the discussed Wikipedia entry
A man with two or three PubMed publications should not be on Wikipedia. Savisha 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user already has his user-site on wikipedia on which he argues his hypothesis. It can be found on User:Trevmar.--Savisha 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR at its best, vanity at its worst. Delete as nn. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more poorly understood the condition, the more odd hypotheses and unproven treatments arise. If the treatments are barely notable, the inventor is even less so. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to detract slightly from the apparent consensus. Please note that I have no affiliation with the above person, and had never heard of him prior to this morning. However, upon reviewing his recent publication list, I feel that Savisha's comment, though well-intended, is misleading: "A man with two or three PubMed publications...". More important is the fact that he has published in two of the five most prominant medical journals that exist, mainly the CMAJ and The Lancet, and thus, in my opinion, is entitled to a brief article that is neutral in nature and adequately presents both sides of whichever controversal hypothesis he argues. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to say that I have no personal issue with that man. However I do have a problem with him advertising his methods on Wikipedia - He and his colleauge have tried to include the treatment (for which he has no accepted publication not to speak of a randomised controlled trial) in the article for Sarcoidosis. The two publications you are referring to are both short responses to articles, they are not true publications.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a content dispute about a researcher whose notability is established. Saying "He is wrong" is not a good basis for deletion. Go and edit boldly or do RfC. Edison 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying he is wrong. He has not published anything important to be notable. And what is clear, is that his treatment, which he is so proud of has not been proven scientifically by Trials.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure that I really wanted to get involved in this, but in my dealings with this individual I did do a PubMed search (which I have pasted below). You can clearly see that the "papers" published in CMAJ and the Lancet are not papers but are, in fact, author replies (i.e. usually disagreement with what the authors of the papers did publish).

Trevor Marshall. Are statins analogues of vitamin D? Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1234; author reply 1235. No abstract available. PMID 17027719
Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID 16403216
Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID 15246025
Marshall TG. Puzzling vitamin D results. CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):849; author reply 849-50. No abstract available. PMID 12406940

So in reality that is just two papers, and one of these is in a highly specialized journal. I disagree with the inclusion of his aggrandizing, soapbox type article, and I do not think that he is anymore notable as a scientist than thousands of other people. Delete Just my $0.02.--DO11.10 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected (and slightly embarrased:) in my (premature) statement that he had published the papers in CMAJ and The Lancet. I suppose this is what I get for trying to edit on wikipedia during exam time! Anyway, if it can be established that he has insignificant notoriety then I say delete it. I would be in favour of adding a section on either sarcodiosis or vitamin D to something to the effect of: Researchers have also proposed blah blah blah treatment, etc (Marshall T et al.) and then site his journal or something. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Nobody has yet mentioned the WP requirements for balanced coverage. We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. What we do is include a mention of them in the article on the disease or the theory, of proportional importance as judged by those editing there. As for the person, he needs more than this, right or wrong.DGG 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I will need to add a few things in the view of the above comments.

Dr Marshall (PhD in electric engineering/diabetes) and a user called Palbert have already tried to include their views on the articles on Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, and their views have been rightly not allowed to be included in the content. For the disscussions please see Talk:Sarcoidosis and Talk:Vitamin D
I will take Sarcoidosis as an example. I am myself no big fan of corticosteroids, and I embrace the fact that Dr Marshall is hypothesising a different aetiology and treatment. This is worth looking for, and the Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 4th ed. does suggest a protoplast form of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as one of several possibilities. Now the problem: T Marshall is selling his treatment as being for Sarcoidosis, he has not published ANYTHING for that in peer-review journals. However, there has been Published literature on alternatives to corticosteroids one of the more notable authors being [R.P. Baughman], who recently even published [an article] in the Lancet. If you want too beef up the Sarcoidosis article I would suggest you add people like Baughman rather that Marshall.
Lastly, why I got involved in this. I belive that the greatest danger for Wikipedia are not vandals or editors who post hoaxes. In a specialist field like medicine, people like Trevor Marshall or whoever wrote the article are far more dangerous - his article on himself looks very professional, and he uses what looks like scientific papers to back up his arguments (some of these he published in a journal he set up himself). To a lay user, who has sarcoidosis, for example, this may look very serious, and he may be fooled. He will then go onto Marshall's website and maybe even join his therapy, for which there is not a hint of scientific evidence (Please remember that a significant result in a Randomised controlled trial is needed to verify a treatment).
Marshall seems to be very keen on putting his point forward, and his contributions have been doubtful at times: [[42]],[[43]. He has however been very active on the internet, and his wikipedia activity as well as his webpages are a testimony to this: [[44]] [[45]] [[46]]. He also not an academic at any University, but rather set up his own institute, with a few nurses.
Marshall's Protocol seems to be a wonder treatment for [many diseases] including Crohn's, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Sarcoidosis etc. see link.
Marshall's Protocol is not alone in the world of unproven and unpublished hypotheses. There are many other so called Protocols as exemplified by this [this website] on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Are you going to include Marshall and all other Protocols? None of them are proven scientifically. Or are you going to include Marshall because his internet presence is more bold? There are so many more important things than his small-print research.
Finally @DGG: You say that We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. 1. What do you base his public attention on? His own publicity on himself? 2. In science I think that it IS important whether someone has been embraced by peer-based-review or has not been able to publish because his articles were seen as not up to the standard. I do not believe we are here to publish random hypotheses. Especially if you look at the Articles for Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, they include the barest minimum of information including a random hypothesis might lead a lay user to the idea that Marshall's small print stuff is mainstream!
What is also funny, someone has added him as a notable producer of Home-made synthesizers on Wikipedia Synthesizer#Homemade_synthesizers. He is an electrical engineer, and as a medic I cannot assess whether his home-made synthesizer was more important than other ones in the history of these things.

Sorry for the lengthly elaboration. If users were reading the links, it would be much easier to argue. I think the whole thing is VANITY and he does not deserve a single mention on Wikipedia.--Savisha 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - the subject of the article appears to be notable and the article is well-sourced, but I agree with the tag at the top that it reads far too much like the subject's resume. This article should be kept, but it needs a complete rewrite by someone who is prepared to make it less like a vanity page or something advertising the article's subject. JROBBO 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marshall's entry is not an attempt to disparage other researchers or ideas about treating chronic illness. It is simply a professionally written article intended to make people aware of the fact that Marshall is a significant figure in the world of chronic disease. Thousands of people are currently applying Marshall's treatment plan towards diseases which are painful, and in many cases deadly (particularly Sarcoidosis, a rare lung disease). Take a long look at www.marshallprotocol.com to understand how many people's lives revolve around Marshall's scientific breakthroughs. The MP website has 80,000 posts. That's a lot of feedback by patients undergoing treatment. It would be very strange indeed to tell the thousands of patients doing the Marshall Protocol (who firmly believe that the treatment is drastically altering their quality of life) that the founder of the MP is not a person of note.

The Marshall Protocol is being used by physicians and patients in many countries around the world. A quick Google search for "Marshall Protocol" brings up 12,300 entries, demonstrating that the MP is not only a treatment option in the United States, but recognized internationally.

It is important to realize that Marshall charges no fee to the patients benefiting from his scientific breakthroughs. Patients are only required to understand that they are subjects in a Phase II study about the MP that is being done in conjunction with the FDA. Thus, the FDA not only is aware of this treatment, but is working closely with Marshall to monitor its outcome. In fact Marshall was invited by the FDA to make a presentation in their "Visiting Professor" lecture series.

I suppose an argument could be made that Marshall's views on chronic disease are not correct. However it then makes little sense that his presence in high demand at science colloquia and conferences. Marshall has been publishing scientific papers for the last 25 years. Last month Marshall was offered the position of adjunct professor at an Australian University.

It seems that a fair share of the scientific community is very interested in Marshall's work and his connections with prominent doctors and scientists continue to grow by the day. He's a man with novel ideas who seems to be on the rise in the scientific world. Perhaps we should hesistate before removing the bio of a person who is touching the life of so many people who are so very ill. Sazevedo 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the man is doing good works or not is not the question. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page just needs to be cleaned up so as not to be WP:SOAP. And while my interpretation of WP:OR doesn't proclude research just because it's controversal, I think it is not in the Wiki spirit to write about your own research or biography. If you or your research is notable then it will be writen about by someone else. I think this also includes parties within an arm's reach, such as a coleague. Anyway, i tried to clean up the intro a bit to get rid of some weasel words, etc, but I have finals to study for ... though that hasn't stopped me much anyway ;) I have to agree with Wooty though, it isn't about what good he has done. I'm sure that a lot of people that feel they have been saved by his treatment no doubt want to let others know about it, and I don't blame them, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote opinions or beliefs, no matter how well-intentioned. Providing lots of information, with the caveat that all medical decisions should be made through discussion with a family doctor, would be most appropriate in situations such as these. -- JE.at.UWO^U|_T 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Person has not been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person. -- Satori Son 13:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I was surprised when I noticed this article was marked for deletion. Dr. Marshall is a notable person, and a brief Wikipedia entry is appropriate. Marshall meets the criteria for notability in his field, which is suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) - a Google search for “Trevor Marshall” results in a distinguished number of hits, showing that Marshall is an 'important figure' and is regarded as a 'significant expert in their area' by physicians worldwide (criteria 1 and 2). - Marshall originated the important new concept that dysregulated vitamin D production in humans results in negative changes to the effectiveness of innate immunity and ability to kill bacterial invaders. - Marshall has contributed to refining the use of molecular modeling to evaluate the effects of drugs. As a result of his work, the FDA invited him to make a presentation on the use of molecular genomics and computer modeling, in their “Visiting Professor” lecture series (criteria 7) - His 1983 paper on insulin infusion at PMID 6662523 (available on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed index website) is a significant academic work (criteria 4) as it has been significantly cited by other researchers (source: Science Citations Index). - There is a medical procedure named after Marshall. The "Marshall Protocol" refers to the use of specific dosing of selected antibiotics in combination with an angiotensin receptor blocker. It was actually the physicians and patients using this treatment who began calling it the Marshall Protocol, not Dr. Marshall himself. That name itself is not self promotion. A search for "MarshallProtocol" on Google yields 12,300 hits, and also demonstrates international notoriety (criteria 10).

The existing article doesn’t do a good job of nailing down the fact that Trevor Marshall has developed and used advanced technology for a broad range of innovative applications over more than 25 years. His work has influenced - music (see Wikipedia: Synthesizer). - computing (1993 Eddy Award for Mac User) (http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ ). Another source says Trevor Marshall pioneered modem technologies in Australia. http://www.kashum.com/blog/1097889803 - antennas (Marshall's WiFi antenna designs have met wide acclaim) (Google for "Trevor Marshall" WiFi) - medicine (Based on Marshall's work, the US FDA has designated the drugs Minocycline and Clindamycin as orphan drugs for use in treating Sarcoidosis).

The markup in Wikipedia editing is rather intimidating, but I will be happy to assist in editing this article, or in finding someone else who can work on editing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.68.204.205 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sarabrate 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry! I wasn't signed in when I posted.[reply]

I'm confused about some of the statements posted after my reply. After reading the bio I did not get the impression that it was written by Marshall himself or even his colleagues. I see no statements that reflect any sort of vanity or a desire to "promote" the scientific concepts in the piece. The author of the bio seemed rather objective in my eyes. For example the author does not even claim that Marshall himself believes his protocol has cured patients. It simply states that some patients "claim" to have recovered. I see no statements which say the MP is the ONLY treatment for chronic disease, the best treatment...or anything along those lines. What I do see is a very carefully cited description of the basic concepts of Marshall's scientific discoveries that are essential to state if the reader is to understand WHY he has spent the last decade developing a novel treatment protocol for chronic illness. The science comes straight from medical journals which do not publish "opinions or beliefs." They publish..science. Again I remind you that Marshall is working with the FDA. I'm not sure the FDA conducts Phase II trials based on opinions.

JE-Kudos on balancing finals and wiki work! I think it is reasonable to include a statement that all medical decisions should be made with a family doctor. But I want to clarify that patients on the MP are already required to make decisions with a doctor. Marshall himself is not a medical doctor (he has a PhD in biomedical research). Thus, he cannot prescribe medication. Patients on the MP need to take several medicines aviliable only with a prescription (antibiotics etc). Thus, every person on the MP is already currently working with a doctor who understands and consents to the treatment. That's quite a few doctors around the world who are using the protocol. In regards to your corrections of the first paragraph, I feel it goes a bit overboard. Give the reader a little credit! I think they can certainly infer from the original piece that the MP is one of many treatments for chronic disease. I also think readers can infer on their own that the treatment is controversial, seeing as there are no statements in the piece that even come close to saying that the MP is the only treatment option for sarcoidosis etc.

Look who posted here:

Sarabrate and Sazavedo are both users who joined just to write these arguments.
See their contributions at Special:Contributions/Sazevedo and Special:Contributions/Sarabrate.
Could someone check the IPs? I have a suspicion that they could be the same person - check timeline!
I do not believe that Trevor Marshall did not contribute to his own biography on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors) does not apply to Trevor Marshall, he is not an MD. The page is INACTIVE anyways. He is a scientist and did his PhD at an Electrical Engineering faculty on the topic of Diabetes. WP:NOR, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO applies. He does not pass these.
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) is not policy but is getting towards a consensus. It could serve as a rough guideline.

--Savisha 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Clearly an important scientist, given the attention he has garnered from medical journals and regulatory agencies. Whether simply a content dispute or just another attempt at suppression, an AfD is inappropriate. Ombudsman 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's comment:
- Despite much discussion, there is still no consensus about the notability of the subject, which seems to be the key issue here. I believe some more detailed opinions on why his scholarly contributions and the third-party coverage about him (or the lack thereof) make him notable (or not) would help here.
- However, alleged misconduct on the part of the subject (such as two single purpose accounts, which should be discounted, participating in the above discussion) is not grounds for deletion of the article about him, but for warnings and/or blocks if need be. Sandstein 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the discussion: 'Ombudsman' gave a concise characterization of what this discussion is really about - suppression. Marshall has attracted attention from the medical community and regulatory agencies, making his work scientifically notable. Although I am a newbie, (contributing small bits on various topics for a while, but only formally registered in August), the insinuation that my contributions are sub-par spurred me to do what no one else has apparently been willing to do: take a look at Google!

There was evidence of people around the world discussing the medical treatment attributed to Trevor Marshall. Examples:

Connecticut: Lyme 30th Anniversary of Lyme Conference http://www.ctlymedisease.org/conference2.htm

Video clips http://www.ctlymedisease.org/videoclips.htm

Overview of speakers http://www.cfidsinsights.com/lyme.pdf

An interview (reprint 11/2006 of a 2004 interview) http://www.immunesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/id/5784

One woman’s recovery: http://www.fibromyalgiasupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/ID/7530

Summary of a presentation at the annual CCMRF Conference in Windsor, Ontario, August 26-28, 2005

http://www.ra-infection-connection.com/free_articles/CCMRF05article.htm

Australia: http://www.masmith.inspired.net.au/docs/deed_marshall.htm

Deutsch: http://www.rheuma-liga.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2951&sid=be3272ac98b6256d5dc450333d163618

Russia: http://www.icdc.ru/home.nsf/ae6ba61f2370d2c3c3256f4800499282/e086224a4400c716c3256f660035a5df?OpenDocument
A Russian article by Marshall: http://www.icdc.ru/home.nsf/ae6ba61f2370d2c3c3256f4800499282/7c4adb204d59034bc3256f660035e4ce?OpenDocument

A journal published in Chechoslovakia http://www.vri.cz/news/prilohy/pril459.pdf

State of Washington, USA http://www.neuraltherapy.com/LymeALookBeyond6.pdf

Patients fighting Lyme disease: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/May/20060521Show001.asp

Besides contributions in medicine and medical technology already mentioned in the article and on this discussion page, sources for notable work in other areas include:

Antenna: Trevor Marshall’s antenna designs

http://www.paramowifix.net/antenas/guiaondas_marshall.html

Personal Telco Project http://wiki.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/WirelessLinks

Slot waveguide and tiny biquad antenna http://www.cromwell-intl.com/SECURITY/monitoring.html

biquad wifi projects on the web are based on Trevor Marshall’s antenna: http://www.jsuh.com/rss/author/Eliot_Phillips

Trevor Marshall built one of the first biquad WiFi antennas found on the internet, according to: http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/15/how-to-build-a-wifi-biquad-dish-antenna/3

Modem: Demand Dialing modem http://lrp.ramhb.co.nz/docs/lrpdoc.pdf

Synthesizer: http://www.ukpianos.co.uk/synthesizer-keyboards.html

Author: Backbone Magazine contributing author http://www.backbonemag.com/About_Us/Contact_Us.asp

Byte magazine http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7801/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html

Keep - definitely notable and worthy of a listing. The text needs work, but that's a different issue. Sarabrate 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- clearly a snake oil salesman.--Grahamec 13:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of notablility here. I will try to explain why T Marshall is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia, in my opinion. Please read this especially if you are a non-scientist.

The first thing we need to realise is that T Marshall in Wikipedia is not a media personality but is portrayed/portrays himself as a scientist. I believe this makes a big difference to notability criteria.
I think what is most important to understand in this context is the concept of Evidence-based medicine and scientific peer-review. This means that in scientific journals, a board of editors looks at the submitted work and analyses it from a viewpoint of scientific validity. For medicine, the main source of authoritative journals is PubMed, if a journal is not on Pubmed, it is unlikely to be important.
T Marshall has published five articles to be found on PubMed. Two of these are just author responses, thus only short letters referring to other people's publications. The remaining three are in specialist journals - which means they are not the most groundbreaking discoveries. If a scientist discovers something really important he publishes in Nature, the BMJ, The Lancet etc. And the volume of Marshall's work isn't really breathtaking either - not few of my medical student friends have one or two scientific publications on PubMed.
T Marshall has tried to publish in the BMJ 3 times and admits to this in a BMJ internet-reply - his works were rejected by BMJ-reviewers because they were of "limited interest" and "added little to existing knowledge".
T Marshall publishes regularly in a 'journal' edited and reviewed by himself, a pracice which does not put his professionalism into the best light - [[47]]. Some of the links in the Wikipedia article about him link to this 'journal'.
What about the other links that Sarabrate posted above? Well, from a scientific point of view these aren't really notable - they are far less likely to have factual and scientific content. They should not be taken into account when assessing Marshall's scientific notability. If you want a comparision to journalism - this is like writing for a community newsletter. One of them is the Wikipedia synthesizer page copied onto a html page, two are connected to a local Lyme disease movement etc.
If you care you can take a look at the contributions of Special:Contributions/Sazevedo, Special:Contributions/Sarabrate, Special:Contributions/Trevmar (T Marshall himself) and Special:Contributions/Palbert(seems to be P Albert, a man closely working with T Marshall). You will notice they are very similar indeed in response style, and all accounts try to promote T Marshall on Wikipedia. They all clearly have very good knowledge and very high affection for him. My question is: Who is Who? Make your own mind.
One final note: Sarabrate has inquired into my contributions. I do not have anything to hide and I openly admit that I asked DO11.10 and JFW | T@lk to join this debate. If you think this is questionable practice please contact them or disregard their votes. Also you might notice, that most I have done in WP is linked to this discussion. This is because I was struck by the fact that someone could be pushing pseudoscience via Wikipedia so effectively. I am a medical student and have no other interest in this debate other than making WP more evidence-based and a little less random.

And finally, I would like to appeal to users who vote keep (other than Sarabrate, Trevmar et al), to give an argumentation which also touches on the issue of notability of scientists and Evidence-based medicine in relation to T Marshall. Delete--Savisha 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I have already voted to delete.

Savisha is correct, this debate is about Trevor Marshall's purported notability as a scientist, and since the public is not generally capable of truly judging the scientific merit of a given paper, (the crux of WP:NOR policy I assume) the job of judging science must fall to other scientists, in the form of peer review. Admittedly, this process is not perfect, but in this forum we must accept the peer's judgements of scientific merit.

I would also like to note that another important factor in determining the notability of a scientist is the number of times that other scientists have cited their articles. This is usually a good indication of how important and useful the published paper is to the understanding and work of other authors in the same field. According to Google Scholar (which I refer to as it gives a more accurate "cited by" record) Trevor Marshall's most recent papers have each been cited by fewer than 10 other scientists. This indicates that a paper is of extremely low impact, especially as these papers have been available for over two years. As a comparison, for non-scientists, I offer the record of a truly notable researcher (I pick this scientist because I am familiar with her record, but many notable scientists have similar citation records). Please note the "cited by" numbers here:

Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID 15246025 Cited by 3 other scientists (it says 8 but 5 of these are by Marshall himself). and Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID 16403216 Cited by 1
P. Marrack, et. al. 2004... Cited by 207 (other papers), cited by 196, cited by 153, ect...) Additionally PubMed lists 299 peer-reviewed articles for this scientist, versus Trevor Marshall's 2 or 3 peer-reviewed articles).

When viewed in this light I think that the non-notability of a scientist such as Trevor Marshall becomes quite obvious.--DO11.10 05:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sarabrate. People are being far too picky. Clean up the article by all means, but as Wikipedia is not paper, give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him here - he's obviously done some significant and important research. And I reject suggestions that non-scientists should be excluded from the debate, or forced to accept conclusions by earlier editors. JROBBO 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not Dr. Marshall, nor am I sarabrate. Yes, I am "knowledgeable" about Dr. Marshall and his work, and there are thousands like me. Dr. Marshall is conducting trials with the FDA, lecturing at universities around the world, and collaborating with hundreds of doctors, including mine. He's clearly notable. Sazevedo 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because fundamentally if you can garner that many references and write/debate that much the guy is notable - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge which I leave up to y'all - crz crztalk 14:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial[edit]

This article should be deleted on the basis of nonsense. Finkeltein "dissection" of Peter's book is not something he's written up enough himself, never mind that it should gain credence for an article on wikipedia. There are numerous WP:rules by which the deletion should be completed. frummer 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, check out WP:WWIN for more. frummer 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. - crz crztalk 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One person's views of another person's book generally should not constitute an article in itself. --Metropolitan90 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a book review is a book review, not an encyclopedia entry. SkierRMH,08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge with the Norman Finkelstein page. This is about a substantial part of one of his published notable books, and is a notable controversy surrounding Mr Finkelstein himself. Hence I feel WP:NOR is not a valid argument. I suggest possibly trimming a little, and merging back into the main article. This article was originally broken out of the main article which has a section redirecting to it. See also the talk page. Considering the controversial nature of the subject of the article, I fear this nomination may not be entirely good faith. Akihabara 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it is suspicious that frummer, at the same time as proposing this article for deletion, removed the suggested merge tag. I do not believe this is appropriate behaviour. Thanks to IZAK for restoring this. Akihabara 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, deletions rarely occur without salvaging text from the deleted article and moved to a relevant one, in my judgement, it was OK to delete the merge tag. Anyways, I would like to see how all that trivia is going to reach into his or his book's main article. As per Metropolitan90, it prob won't. frummer

Merge with the main Norman Finkelstein article. Too much of an obvious and not needed fork. IZAK 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the page about the book Blaming the Victims. Finkelstein work on From Time Immemorial was first published in book-form in Blaming the Victims, in 1988. Regards, Huldra 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Metropolitan90. --Shuki 19:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Somitho 12:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amoruso 11:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. frummer is manipulating us (see comment above). Metropolitan90 mentions 'in general'. Could be. In this case: the last paragraph describes the connection between the dissertation, the author, and the university (!) getting into trouble. Now thats not just a view. And not one to be deleted too. -DePiep 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with From Time Immemorial, though I hate to add another option to an already convoluted AfD discussion. I agree with Metropolitan90 and others above that this is not a subject for a separate article. However, it seems to me that the logical place to merge a book criticism is to the article about the book being criticized. The book article already contains references to Finkelstein's criticism, so I think that discussion should be expanded to include the salvageable content from this article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one way or another: too narrow to deserve a separate article, but Finkelstein's critique of Peters certainly belongs in Wikipedia somewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into From Time Immemorial with some commentary in the Finkelstein article. --64.230.127.234 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people who were cremated[edit]

I recently prodded this and it was uncontested for a week. However, the admin closing old prods noted that it had been through VfD before so isn't prod-able (I was unaware of this stipulation). I think this should be deleted because it is an unsourced, unencyclopedic article topic that any other encyclopedia wouldn't have (even keeping in mind Wikipedia is not paper). What makes fictional people being cremated noteworthy enough for an article? If this were kept it sets a precedent to keep any arbitrary list of things that happened to fictional characters, which is a potentially endless amount of lists. If kept, this at very minimum needs souces for every entry. Nearly half the list contains non-linked names that apparently we are supposed to take the person who added it's word for being true. VegaDark 08:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbitary, incomplete, useless and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, listcruft, and what would be the use? SkierRMH,08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unworkably broad, includes self-immolation and 'radioactive blast'. Would open the door to such lists as List of fictional people killed by falling and List of fictional people buried at sea.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and maintainable fanlistcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it Danny Lilithborne 12:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TSO1D 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this include every time the Coyote blew himself up and turned into a pile of ashes with eyeballs? Delete. Pointless list. Wavy G 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and cremate the server hd it was stored on. Unsourced listcruft with no forseeable end or encyclopaedic value --Mnem e son 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely arbitrary and unreasonable subject for a list.-- danntm ^T _C 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have this list and should be deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves was. Finally, I noticed that the original VFD is has not been closed and that one person recently posted to delete there currently. I put a message one the page there but can someone please try to move the response here in case the person does not see the message I left. There is a link of the talk page for the article. --64.229.73.113 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now closed the old VfD. VegaDark 04:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surely of interest only to the most hardcore of list-fetishists...- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't call me Shirley. Wavy G 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Somitho 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Benn Newman 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Metros232 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Catholic[edit]

This is a self-produced television series that runs on community television. The creators of the article are also producing it and playing the characters. I asked one of them about sources, but he indicated at User_talk:DarkTurtle that "we can't really imagine how to reference it." Withour references, notability is unestablishable and it fails WP:V. It should be deleted. Kchase T 08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V problems. SkierRMH,08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure its a great programme, but without a source to establish notability it has no place here. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article. A Google News Archive search for "Brisbane Catholic" TV comes up with no relevant sources. [48] Capitalistroadster 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $45 and a VHS tape buys anyone an hour of community TV time. Somitho 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, fair enough, I understand why it's being deleted and I guess it's appropriate that it is. Maybe when we're famous Brisbane Catholic will be back on Wikipedia. DarkTurtle 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (CSD A7) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Cooperative[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article about a non-notable organization created by User:Pco, who appears to be the group's founder or someone associated with her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems to be"? The organization was started by Darrow Boggiano, according to the article; and User:Pco signs herself as Darrow at least once. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe party/website; from what I can tell its most prominent mentions are the Wikipedia article, the group's website, and a couple of blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) There is no mention of the wikipedia article at the group's website. You are a liar Jayjg! Pco 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think it's quite clear that Jay says that this page and your group's page are the only major sites mentioning this group. He never said that the WP article is mentioned at your group's website. This sort of unhinged behavior contributes nothing to this project. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate vanity. MER-C 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a circular reference; and הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים (Eccl 1). SkierRMH,09:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another non-notable organization trying to gain publicity with a wikipedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable, also per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (the circular reference mentioned above) and per WP:SPAM - this is an advertisement, of sorts. --SunStar Net^talk 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need more right-wing propaganda, nothing new, peaceful or inspiring. Pco 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that User:Pco has a Conflict of interest on this article. Delete, nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn - a combination of db-spam and db-bio --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN soapboxing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I'm fairly inclusionist and would have been willing to fight for the page as it was presented as having an association with quite a few people so I looked at the web site BUT though the web page lists many peoples names it says "To Name a Few of the Individuals and Organizations from whom we are seeking Candidates and Platform recommendations:" and also "The following is just a sample of the organizations that we wish to receive support from in the form of information and participation:". (my emphasis) To me listing all those names is simply trying to rig the search engines. Bad karma feeling - something is just not right. Maybe in the future when it actually gets some people on board then fine but let others create that page on Wikipedia not people involved with the organisation. Ttiotsw 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veil fetishism[edit]

After spending much time at Wikipedia:List of policies, I believe this article breaks these policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Another person on Talk:Veil fetishism has also written with good cause that there is no evidence for so-called "veil fetishism" and this is a true statement. Intervixen 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V, WP:NOR. Even if such a fetish exists, there are no reliable sources for it; the cited works seem to make no reference to veils as a sexual fetish. Sandstein 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i agree with Sandstein. Only one source in the whole list actually refers to it's existence (Pornscan???), and many posts there are making a mockery of the idea. While it may actually exist, the author will need to cite something even remotely authoritative about it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see any references for this as a fetish. SkierRMH,09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even poorer sourcing than most sexual fetish articles, which takes some doing. Unlike many of the rest, though, there doesn't even seem to be a plausible chance of references being found here. Serpent's Choice 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These pages, Chador fetishism and Chador fetish, redirect to "Veil fetishism". Is it possible to list that one with this article or does it require a separate deletion request? I should say that "chador fetishism" also does not exist. I notice that User:Patchouli is responsible for a lot of this. Intervixen 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepThis article is sourced and there is no reason for its deletion whatsoever. Here are some places for more research:

http://www.pervscan.com/2005/06/02/all-girls-are-good-to-look-at/

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/388

http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/79_feat1.html

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/kahwes.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/11/1160246195653.html?page=2

http://mayanot.easycgi.com/archive/article.asp?ArticleID=111 :* http://www.mdblackweddings.com/article.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/smart/smart11.html

http://www.warriorprincess.com/seasontwo/ep33_solsticecarol.html

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/the_mummy_wrap_party.html

http://www.dustbury.com/archives/000515.html

Erotic Muslims in Today's World Warning: Adult site (used in context to demonstrate Islamic veil fetish

http://www.beurettes-rebelles.com/beurette22.html shows it exists.

Veiled Babes Why are Western publishers so keen on shrouded cover models?

This is a reality. So much so, that currently conspiracy theories have sprung up like Muslim Porn: CIA Psychological Warfare?. There are even true events surrounding this like Israeli Arab Muslim mob lynches porno actress. Also, this article is not exclusively on Muslims. It is about the fetish of veils, in general. There are even nuns with veils having sex like http://www.fucking-nuns.com/thumbs/photo.php?4 (used in context). Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not censored. There are many other objectionable articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to amass vote to have your it way.--Patchouli 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having checked some of the links above. They are unreliable, trivial or do not mention "veil fetish". Wikipedia is top hit on the Web, and if you exclude Wikipedia you get things like FaithFreedom as the leading sources. Nothing on Google Scholar, nothing on Factiva, nothing relevant on Google News. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives 5,500 hits for "veil fetish". Furthermore, it is the concept and idea that is important. Not the word; there are are names for a single concept.--Patchouli 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What concept? What idea? Nothing that can be gleaned from reliable sources, at any rate. So there's porn with veiled women, big deal: there's any imaginable type of porn on the Net. But to construct an actual sexual fetish out of this would certainly need good citations for the veil being used as a fetish rather than just an item of clothing, and such sources have not been provided. Sandstein 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a fetish is an inanimate object that arouses sexual excitement. There are abundant sources above to back this.--Patchouli 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patchouli, it's all Muslim porn, Orientalism and odalisques. There's no evidence that guys are salivating over imaginary renderings of upper-class Byzantine or Sassanian women in veils, to name some other civilizations that veiled women. Let's merge anything useful to Muslim porn. Zora 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above, on this page is a link for nuns. Here is one for male-to-female trans-sexuals http://www.toyracorsetant.com/Tour/01/Toyra_WhiteRopes_0538.jpg. Then there are cross-dressrers with veils,etc. Muslim porn is a sub-set of this article.--Patchouli 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim porn is a redirect to veil fetish, so redirecting there won't help. What probably needs to happen is for all the Mad Libs-esque (clothing) fetish articles to be merged into something (clothing fetish, maybe? I don't know, this isn't my demense) and then that content cited or tossed. Regarding the referecing, there is more to documenting a (clothing) fetish than showing evidence that women wearing (clothing) have flirted with men in a movie or that you can create erotica/pornography involving women wearing (clothing). Serpent's Choice 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing is an extremely broad term. A t-shirt is clothing. Don't worry. I have pasted the entire article on my user page.--Patchouli 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution would be Redirect to Mask fetishism. Patchouli is right in that the Muslim thing is only part of it, though it may well be an important one - a more important detail is that the veil anonymises the women to some extent - a feature shared with the similar Mask fetishism. A redirect and smerge to that would seem to me to be a more sensible option, with links to Muslim porn, Harem fetishism and the like there if such articles exist. Grutness...wha? 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (after not one or two, but three edit conflicts!)[reply]
The mask one is suggestive of a leather covering of the face and/or body. Veil and everything described in the article concern fabric as far as I can think. That article which may be 1/10 times as complete as this one is separate. Apples and orange belong to the fruit category, but we have different article for each.--Patchouli 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it from that you haven't read Mask fetishism. It makes it patently clear that it can be any type of mask or face covering. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that despite surviving an AFD in Dec 2005, mask fetishism has only one reference from what appears to be a reliable source, and that is a BBC news report about a mask fetishist who devlolved into criminal behavior! And even that barely mentions the topic itself. I suggested the broad merge because, frankly, these stubby paraphilia articles seem to struggle to be able to find enough references to stay afloat. Serpent's Choice 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surprising - "Mask+fetish" returns 14000 ghits. Starting with this one. There are also quite a few sites at the Yahoo directory dedicated to mask fetishism, and there are even mask fetish conventions such as [Maskon. Not that that page couldn't use a lot of expansion - mask fetishism is quite common in Japan, for instance, and is related to the full body-costume fetish of kigurumi (itself related to turning real people into anime-like cartoons) - but that's not mentioned anywhere on that page. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above links, it clearly is a fetish; but it does need to be better re-written. Somitho 13:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baseless speculations by some people alien to such traditions; failing WP:V, WP:NOR. What about Jeans fetishism ?! Sun glass fetishism ?! Gorbeh 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:Patchouli's list of contribution is interesting; abusing wikipedia for promoting personal opinions. Promoting terms like Muslim porns!!! Scarf fetishism!! this is not what wikipedia is standing for. Please make also articles: christian porn, Jewish porn and liberal porn, Marxist porn .... !!! Such issues are unencyclopedic. Gorbeh 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please to whomever is in charge of deletions, please also add Muslim porn (which was created by User:Patchouli) to this list if it is agreed to delete. With thanks. Intervixen 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Headscarf fetish like http://www.toyracorsetant.com/Tour/01/Toyra_WhiteRopes_0538.jpg is veil fetish but not mask fetish.--Patchouli 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable phenomenon, although could probably do with some tighter sourcing. - Francis Tyers · 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, given the numerous sources on the members, I think User:Akihabara has been answered (he hasn't said otherwise), and there's no-one else arguing for deletion even conditionally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aref ensemble[edit]

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 20:24Z

Strong Keep The group is one of the most notable Persian music ensemble of 20th century. No doubt, It deserves a page on wikipedia. Sangak 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find reliable sources? I did not have much luck with googling for them. Leibniz 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Most articles are in persian unfortunately. One may find Album posters and short reviews in English for example this one[49] and Iran Newspaper in English[50] or this link about some of the group members[51]. Here are English google and Persian google search for them. Sangak 12:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if User:Sangak can come up with some references / sources to support his claim. Otherwise weak delete. Akihabara 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance this page refers to Aref group:History of Iranian music. Sangak 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment hmm... I'm not really sure what my opinion is here, but it seems that no consensus has been reached, so I say close the AFD for that reason. Charlie 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gafro[edit]

This is a dictionary definition of a slang word. Punkmorten 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, merge any suitable content into Afro et al. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly OR - delete with White afro[52], a similar unsourced OR article featuring a slang term for a hairstyle. B.Wind 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting as another article, White afro, was added to the nomination. I've updated the header accordingly. Sandstein 08:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, note that white afro has its own deletion debate. MER-C 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thanks, removing it from the header again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White afro. Sandstein 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism verging on dicdef for slang term. SkierRMH,09:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, dicdef, non-notable, something that would be more appropriate on Urban Dictionary Pumeleon^T 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Somitho 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've recreated it as a redirect to basic needs. Sandstein 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vital needs[edit]

WP:OR and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to know as well. I've asked if the editor, if would pop back and fill us in. --Charlesknight 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more refs - I'm inclined to think that this is OR considering that there is only ONE source. If this is truly is an important and notable model, than there would peer discussions and since it has been around for so long SOMEONE should have written something about it by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I can find no reference anyway to this in any academic literature - flush it. --Charlesknight 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR by someone called Ulise Di Corpo added by USER:Dicorpo. Nuttah68 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the inability to find reliable sources (peer-reviewed journal, etc.) other than the one that is already in the article. Suspected WP:OR and WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its going to need more sources before it can have an encyclopedia entry.-- danntm ^T _C 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since as far as I can work out - he came up with it 25 years ago and it's never been picked up anywhere by anyone... well... --Charlesknight 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundra Oakley[edit]

This is one of the many Survivor contestant articles where the person really isn't notable. It seems like she's only had a few minor, one episode appearances on shows besides Survivor. Through the many AFD's, it has become clear that, unless the player has won the show, did something really, really notable on the show, or did something notable outside of the show, they really don't deserve an article. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless or until she's voted off. Otto4711 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until actual notability is achieved! We don't keep articles on the off-chance that the subject may become notable! Xtifr _tälk 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, her appearances make her just minimally notable for as long as she's on the show. Chuck 'er if she loses. Otto4711 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this AfD is premature. Her regular appearances in Survivor: Cook Islands, in addition to the roles in Sex and the City and CSI: Miami put her barely above the notability bar... for now. Whether she stays there will depend on the end of the Survivor season and any roles she has after it, but in the interim, she's a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got this backwards! Her current appearances are giving her some temporary and ephemeral warhols (short-term fame), but do not provide any lasting notability! We don't (generally) create articles about topics that are short-term in-the-news; we wait until it's clear that the topic has lasting notability. Little-white-girl-missing may be covered by all the news channels for a day or two, but that doesn't mean the little white girl deserves a Wikipedia article, even though many people may, briefly, be able to remember her name. Because, chances are, in a couple of weeks or months, nobody will remember the name any more. As for Ms. Oakley, bit TV parts may make this person more notable than your average game show loser, but fall far short of what WP:BIO asks for. The AfD is not premature; the article is premature! Xtifr _tälk 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Au contraire - Wikipedia is loaded with such ephemera and should reflect the notability and notariety of the subjects of the articles. Regarding your Little-white-girl-missing may be covered by all the news channels for a day or two, but that doesn't mean the little white girl deserves a Wikipedia article, even though many people may, briefly, be able to remember her name argument: of course the logical reply is that once the person is forgotten, the article covering her can be quickly and easily deleted. Regarding Ms. Oakley, she is a regular on a program seen by over a dozen million people each week (and has been for the last three months), and until that status changes, that's enough to establish notability under WP:BIO. Once she slips from public mind (along with Survivor: Cook Islands), the article can be erased. B.Wind 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold-On. We are now only two days from the finalle, and the declaration of the winner. Both Oscar Lusth and Sundra Oakley are up for AFD, but both are also still in the running. If either of them wins, that will make a major change in their notability status. It does not make much sense to me to close either or both of these AFDs and delete the articles when in only two days there may be a dramatic shift in the notability situation for one of them. If these AFDs are closed and one of them wins, then the article will need to be recreated within days of it's deletion. If the AFDs can be held from closing for just a couple more days, we can avoid that situation and know for sure if one of them is the winner. I'm not arguing that these articles are premature, and if these AFDs were being held a few weeks back I would have said to torch the articles. But at this point, this close to the end, if the AFDs can just stay open for a couple more days.... - TexasAndroid 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting to keep this open until the show is over, per TexasAndroid. Sandstein 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I waited. She's gone now, so once again, Delete. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands. None of the other fourth-place finishers have their own articles, but some (Cirie Fields) have been redirected to the season they were in. 11kowrom 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Didn't win. No reason for her own article, though redirect to the latest season might be an OK alternative. - TexasAndroid 04:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable contestant with an acting background. --Thankyoubaby 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Has appeared in primetime TV programs. Pcpp 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Scorpion 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Somitho 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not notable enough as a contestant in Survivor. If that combined with the acting career justifies the entry then fine, I'm not convinced it does. The fire making challenge would be fine if covered under the main S:CI page or Becky Lee. I'd probably suggest against a redirect; changing the reference to her on the page on the episode of Sex and the City she appeared in to point to the Cook Islands article would be fine. Jxan3000 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary pokemon and Base Stats[edit]

Wikipedia is not a gameguide. The information consists solely of base stats that in no way further comprehension of the Pokemon franchise to a layperson. The article cannot be improved because an article about legendary pokemon and their base stats is both game guide, and any encyclopeadic information would be found in that specific pokemon's article. ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -not gameguide. SkierRMH,09:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been looking for things like these, and someone else beats me to this... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a game guide, though if someone wants to move this to gaming wiki they should. Koweja 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Insert your own WP:POKEMON comment here. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pokecruft. AgentPeppermint 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft is all I have to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by You Can't See Me! (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Inside-out, I know all four-nine-three
And this is very crufty!
It's not good for PCP
So I suggest a strong delete! TTV|talk|contribs|email 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sbfj 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guide is essentially interpretive. It's both OR and a how-to guide. We don't need this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a game guide. -Saturn Yoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete . This is a helpful page that compares and contrast the diffrent legendary pokemons powers according to their basestats, and is helpful to readers who want to know information on how strong each is. It is a combination of pages put into one that tell the reader each pokemons power in contrast to one another and in no way helps one complete the pokemon game in any way, so I do not understand how this is a guide, and if it is, then so is every other pokemon page that tells the reader how to catch pokemon, which is way more of a guide then this one.
- comment there's two things to note about your objection. The first is that you call it a guide in the first sentence then deny it in the second. The other problem is that there are no pages telling people HOW to catch Pokemon, or there SHOULDN'T be... if you see info like, "You can catch Zigzagoon on Rts. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc." delete it. This is a general encyclopedia and detailed info about base stats is considered to be too in-depth for the average reader. Ask yourself - would someone who is never going to play the game care if Ho-Oh's attack is 110 or 120? Saying one has a higher attack than another is enough. Perhaps you would like to contribute to Bulbapedia instead? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - and editing your previous comments to avoid confronting the fact that you recognize it as a guide doesn't help anything. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a game guide. While this is a decent article, it's in the wrong place. I would say transfer it over to Bulbapedia, but they almost certainally already have an article like this, so Delete away, captain. -Ryanbomber 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bloody kids. The Kinslayer 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the intro paragraph (the only encyclopedic info) is already covered at Legendary Pokemon. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skorpio[edit]

First of all, this page is completely unsourced. Second, this person isn't notable. His company isn't notable, and neither is he. It is just another independent wrestler from another independent promotion. This amounts to fancruft and random information, unsourced information at that. -- T H L 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this article should be deleted due to all that is said above.--James Maxx 08:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this individual meets WP:BIO. Appears to be non-notable figurehead of a local/regional wrestling outfit that, based on what I can find, fails WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and redirect to Scorpio as a reasonable misspelling. 23skidoo 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scorpio Nonnotable professional wrestler. Mytildebang 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breay[edit]

Vanity page created by User:Sappo12, who just changed her username from User:Breay13 (see [53] Note that "Lara Breay" gets 15 ghits.[54] Note that Lara Breay was previously deleted [55] as a vanity page. GabrielF 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and nothing to show notability Jayden54 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Also malplaced article (should use full name). TonyTheTiger 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BIO; SkierRMH,09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 12:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO. A non-notable production-type person, and despite the supposed association with Ben Stiller, notability is not contagious. Suspected WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Generations[edit]

Hoax, no google hits other than the wiki article, not even rumours or rumblings. Pumeleon^T 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing that's correct in the article is that "[v]ery little is known about this new Wii game". MER-C 10:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's either crystal balling or a hoax. Koweja 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little is known about this new Wii game... let's keep it that way until something is. WP:NOT a crystal ball and/or a place to post hoaxes. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sbfj 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Red Alien War Is Over! (If You Want It.) 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Knuckles sonic8 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total bollocks, WP:NOT for something made up in school one day etc etc. Take your pic. The Kinslayer 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per that crystal ball thing. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrash[edit]

No assertion of notability is made. Seems more like an advertisement than anything. Wikipedia is not a web directory and this article fails WP:WEB Should be deleted RWR8189 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, though it should be mentioned that WP:ORG is the relevant guideline. MER-C 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no credible evidence of notability. Deizio talk 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete vandalism / patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Shock[edit]

Obvious hoax by User:Arievoorman, see also his/hercontributions. Originally the article also claimed he won a Nobel prize. Aleph-4 10:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD G3. All user's edits are vandalism, the claims made in this article are obvious baloney. Tubezone 10:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as no reliable sources have been presented to establish notability; AfD is a discussion not a vote, and asserting that they exist is not sufficient. Verifiability is non-negotiable and is the responsibility of those adding content or supporting its inclusion.

If reliable sources can be found as claimed then there is no prejudice against the articles being recreated with them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Professional Football League[edit]

Non-notable indoor football league. I'm also going to be nominating the articles for the teams in the league. Bobblehead 10:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the teams of the league and are equally non-notable:

--Bobblehead 10:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Only 171 unique and 583 total Google hits for "American Professional Football League", and that includes tons of Wiki mirrors. No notability (as demonstrated via third-party coverage) is presented in the article, and I found no reliable sources mentioning the league on Google. -- Kicking222 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This league does have notability in the indoor football community, it just doesn't have a strong Internet presense. The league has an established fanbase in the towns that the teams operate in. -- TNT44 16:20, 17 December 2006 (EST)
- We need reliable sources to document that notability though. Punkmorten 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we follow the notability guidelines to the letter, not only are the teams and league notable but so is everyone who has ever played in this league. In any case, Wikipedia can at least have articles on the leagues and teams. Recury 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:N. InterCity sports leagues are notable. The APFL's website indicates they are considering merging with the Intense Football League, which is more "notable" using the unofficial "Google test." If that happens in a year or two, then we can merge the articles. Today, the APFL has not merged, and it has not totally fallen apart yet. A Google search on the individual teams turns up several sources to indicate that the games and teams are achieving notability. The Google results indicate not just internet recognition, but digital copies of newspapers. JeremyBicha 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're an active professional football league; why delete it? RMc 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury and JeremyBicha Tom Danson 05:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JeremyBicha League has franchises in semi-major cities and has recieved coverage in many of those newspapers Elsprucemoose 06:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Mergers are not ruled out, but remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 12:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist[edit]

The definition is redundant per philanthropy and the list is redundant per Category: Philanthropists. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, like pessimism and pessimist and altruist and altruism, they are Wikipedia:Duplicate articles addressing a single subject that don't need to come to AFD to be merged? ☺ Uncle G 11:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, harsh :-) No, I don't see any need to merge - there's nothing here that needs merging. I guess I could just redirect, but since PROD was removed I anticipate resistance. No separate article is needed, the history is not needed for GFDL (IMO anyway). Delete and redirect is OK by me. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's possibly because {{prod}} was the wrong tag for a merger, just as {{afd1}} is. {{mergeto}} is the tag, and probably wouldn't have been removed, in part because it points to the article's talk page where a merger discussion appears to be ongoing. ☺ Uncle G 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Uncle G. MER-C 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category: Philanthropists only shows names. Many of them are best known (and maybe only got an article) for other reasons. Their philanthropic work may be mentioned in passing in their article but not be particularly notable. Philanthropist can pick more notable philanthropists and give summary information about the nature of their philanthropic work, giving an overview of information which would be time consuming to collect otherwise. Listings with only name were removed December 8. [56]. The subcategory Category:Founders of English schools and colleges and article Founders of English schools and colleges are closer to eachother but the latter still contains extra information. An article also gives other possibilities not in categories (discussed at Talk:Philanthropist). PrimeHunter 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It seems like it could cause problems, e.g. with redundancy, having two separate articles for philanthropist and philanthropy. PrimeHunter, maybe the idea of creating List of notable philanthropists or some such could be discussed to address your concerns. delldot | talk 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with PrimeHunter's points, but I think it doesn't outweigh the effort of continuously maintaining the article, which is more work than for most other articles since this article has proven to be prone to vanity edits. (Creating "List of notable philanthropists" wouldn't help - it's just a different name for the same thing.) I could be swayed to "keep" if I were convinced that Jerzy and The Transhumanist, who so lovingly improved this article after I informed everybody that I had tagged it with {{prod}}, kept watching over it. This seems to be not the case, seeing that they have not raised their voice here. I don't make a big difference between "merge with philanthropy" and "delete", since there isn't much more text here, and everybody is free to add a sentence or two to the philanthropy article, anyway. — Sebastian 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-sophie bertrand[edit]

Neutral bump up from speedy. There's enough here to assert notability, and I found these two things [57] [58] linked from her website. This article would take a bit of work to format and NPOV-ify. No opinion just yet. Kchase T 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Delete the article as it stands is garbage. I wouldn't object to changing my vote given a total rewrite. Danny Lilithborne 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She won some awards and played some possibly notable recitals, but I don't think that makes her notable. Terribly written and POV and, quite possibly, a conflict of interest (User:ANNE BERTRAND). Wavy G 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageable, would need a total rewrite. As it stands, WP:BIO doesn't seem to be met, per Wavy G, and it's rife with WP:COI issues as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten. At the moment it appears to be just a cut-and-paste of the performer's stock bio. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conflict of interest and weak assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but notable enough if rewritten without CoI issues. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, but should pass the woefully inclusive WP:MUSIC. As regards WP:BIO, I have a recollection of seeing an interview with her in La Libre Belgique some years ago, but I didn't find it. Worth a check on Factiva perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. Reads like a badly-retyped version of a bio as would appear in a concert programme. Subject is borderline notable but article is beyond repair in its current form. Raymond Arritt 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Deizio talk 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stompbox (band)[edit]

Unreferenced, unlinked article that does not claim notability. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom, though maybe this could have been put up for CSD? Lethaniol 12:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN band, fails WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 12:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - {{db-band}}. So tagged. MER-C 12:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied spam. Opabinia regalis 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quikbook[edit]

This is little more than an advertisement. Ceoil 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 12:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no credible evidence of notability re: WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Single ref does not feature subject as primary focus. Deizio talk 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Playboy Mansion (song)[edit]

It's just a song. No single was released. It doesn't have any cultural significance outside of just being a track on the album.

Also included in this nomination are the following for the same reasons:

-- Dismas|^(talk) 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - all listed. They are U2 songs, not some by some unknown. People are interested in them even if the nominator may not be. Admittedly more work could be done to work up the articles, including interpretations - there is enough sources around - but that can't be done if they are deleted. Gone and Wake Up are in a select group of songs to have been cited by singer Bono as among his favourite U2 songs.--Merbabu 13:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yes, I've given this some thought and want to change my suggestion: these articles are excessive and this information should be merged into the Pop album article. (it will improve the Pop album article). However, I do not want to see this information deleted and lost. I may have time in the next few days to merge - but if it gets deleted, could the deleting admin please save the info somehow (and let us know) for merging. Deleting admin: could you please keep me informed. thanks Merbabu 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All pass WP:MUSIC being songs of the very notable U2. Akihabara 13:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, could you point out what part of WP:MUSIC these songs satisfy? Dismas|^(talk) 13:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC refers to musicians and ensembles, not songs. If you're referring to the proposed WP:SINGLE guideline linked to from WP:MUSIC, these songs meet none of the criteria listed there; being songs by a "very notable" act is not enough. Extraordinary Machine 13:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Pop (album). That U2 are notable does not mean that every song they have recorded is notable. The vast majority of album tracks are non-notable, and these articles fail to establish the significance of these songs (apart from the sentence-long mention of the Q magazine list in the "Miami" article that could easily be merged into the album article). Readers of a general encyclopedia will not need to know that "If You Wear That Velvet Dress" was played at nearly every show on the Popmart Tour, or that The Edge used a Rickenbacker 360-12 to perform "Gone" on the Elevation Tour. A bigger problem here is the presence of original research and editorial opinion in these articles. Apparently "Miami" is "perhaps the most experimental track the band has released under its own name" - according to whom? "["Wake Up Dead Man"] is written as a plea from Bono for Jesus to return and fix the world" - who said this? "The opening notes [of "The Playboy Mansion"] strongly resemble that of a pornographic movie soundtrack" - again, where is this information coming from? None of these articles are referenced either. Extraordinary Machine 13:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gone (U2 song) and Miami (U2 song) under any criteria - "Gone" is one of the most visible Pop numbers in later concerts, and is included on the group's The Best of 1990-2000 compilation. "Miami" is one of U2's most controversial and liked/disliked numbers, as the article indicates. Wasted Time R 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rest under pragmatic criteria - U2 is one of those artists at the pinnacle of critical and commercial success and fervent fandom where eventually, every song is going to have an article. Examples already exist in WP: every song of The Beatles has an article, even those like "Hold Me Tight" that McCartney no longer remembers. Every Led Zeppelin song seems to have an article, even ones like "Hots on for Nowhere" or "The Wanton Song" that don't have much to say (the article or the song!). Every Pink Floyd song has an article, even for albums before Dark Side of the Moon, even for songs like "Stop" that are only 30 seconds of connecting music, or songs like "The Hero's Return" that are unremembered tracks from failed albums during the group's breakup period. And so on. U2 isn't quite there yet, but it will be, and that's ok. It comes with the WP territory, like every Simpsons episode and every minor Star Wars character and every stupid video game all having articles. Wasted Time R 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another way to look at is that 1/2 a album that sold 7million copies is being nominated.--Merbabu 14:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-comment: I realize that I am arguing by the What about article x? principle, which is not especially favored. However, U2 still has a lot of songs without articles, especially from their early albums. If User:Dismas and the others are looking to start the Great Wikipedia Song Article Purge, there are other places to start that are even more appropriate. Wasted Time R 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all six articles, as per Wasted Time R. Please note that WP:SINGLE is not official policy, and that WP:MUSIC does not cover individual song articles. A quick look at the guideline's talk page shows that this subject is highly debatable. If the articles are not referenced, add a ^{[citation needed]} template to them. --Kristbg 14:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The odd external link not withstanding, all I'm seeing here is unverified subjective musical appraisals, original research and fancruft trivia. Miami (U2 song), for example, is a just fan write-up that flies in the face of WP:V, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:RS etc. ""Miami" is perhaps the most experimental track the band has released under its own name. As such, it is a very polarizing song among the U2 fanbase." Says who? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Albums and singles by notable artists are the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, individual tracks, in general, are not. There's more than a little WP:ILIKEIT going on here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tracks can be discussed on the pages for their respective album. This will probably fail, just as it's hard to get rid of Beatlescruft, but, seriously, just because the artist could arguably go on a list of the top 100 most notable ones doesn't mean that everything associated is also notable. GassyGuy 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; I seem to remember (maybe on WP:SONG) that each song from a notable album deserves its own article. I may just be hopelessly out of date, though. --3M163//Complete Geek 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep Keep Gone (U2 song) and Miami (U2 song). Merge and redirect the rest with the album's page until there is enough information for them to be spun off into their own articles (if that day comes). —ShadowHalo 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- 1. I have nothing against U2, I happen to have the CD that these songs are off of.
  2. If the articles are deleted, they can be readded later with citations for interpretations. They can be worked on in a User subpage. Although the fact remains that they are just songs that were never released as singles.
  3. I realize now that there are articles for every song by notable bands but I don't have the time to go around and tag everyone of them. I'd also rather avoid making a point.
  4. The articles consist of mainly technical details, such as the time of the song and its track number, which could and do already go on the article for the album, as well as tour details like how often it was played, if at all, which really should go on the article for the specific tour. If this info is taken out since it's already in those articles, all you're left with is a sub-stub.
  5. I'd like it if this whole song thing didn't devolve into WP:POKEMON.
  6. And finally, "The Hero's Return" is not unremembered. It happens to be a favorite song of mine. :-)
Dismas|^(talk) 09:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; songs from a notable album by a notable band. Porce 12:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so why is it preferable to mention them in individual articles, and not in the album article? there is actually, very little notable information in the song articles. Merbabu 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:46Z

The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation)[edit]

All of the links within the page are already linked within the main The Empire Strikes Back article. The page also includes a number of somewhat trivial references to the phrase from the media. The Filmaker 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see how many 'Empire Stikes Back' entries you can have, outside of what's already present. It's already well linked elsewhere and this page is essentially a duplication. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments in prior discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation)/archive1. And bad form for not linking to the previous discussion. The Empire Strikes Back, like Star Wars (disambiguation) is a term that has come up in real life, as such, it's more appropriate to disambiguate here than mention it in the main article. I also find it to be better from an organizational perspective than links within an article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to have a dab page for multiple uses of a title, even within a franchise, and there are also other uses that justify a dab page. I agree that the fact this has previously been nominated -- and kept -- should have been mentioned. In fact I just reminded myself that I also voted to keep in that discussion, too. 23skidoo 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The disambiguation page lists 13 different objects and/or concepts. Not all of them are relevant to the main Star Wars article, and the disambiguation page serves a valid purpose in directing users to the multiple related uses of the term. -- Black Falcon 09:21, 10 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, WP:CSD#A7, db-web. Deizio talk 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racerap[edit]

No reliable sources, no sources at all, no assertion of notability, reads like an advert, contested prod, only 570 Ghits, does not seem notable, no notability asserted from a reliable source. Moreschi 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church[edit]

Appears non-notable, Google "Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church" -wikipedia -forum only returns 37 unique hits. However disputes over name may make it notable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59 17 December 2006 (GMT).

Hi Zahakiel, you're a member of the church I understand? Please have a read of WP:COI. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:02 17 December 2006 (GMT).

Comment removed as per WP:COI, thanks. Zahakiel 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: While I'm usually sympathetic to keeping breakway movements from established churches, this appears to be only a single local congregation. On that basis I think they're non-notable. If they spread to other congos, my opinion would change. They may qualify on the basis of the domain dispute, but that shouldn't be the major part of the article: I'm more interested in how they distinguish themselves from other SDA churches. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for most the same reasons as by Bpmullins and for the fact that it is a footnote in history that at some point might need to be explained. Alf photoman 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, potentuially realte all Seventh-day Adventist Church edit wars in WikipediaRaveenS 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the name controversy is relevant to issues in Adventism and there are definitely things on Wikipedia less notable than this. Camael 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they are a denomination, not merely a church, and show notable notable doctrinal innovation.--OinkOink 09:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep in some form; if they're really undesired then articles on songs can generally be redirected to the artist or the album without AfD (which rarely results in a consensus for outright deletion). Those wishing to merge are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magia (song)[edit]

I'm a bit mixed on this one. According to the guideline at WP:SINGLE, if a song meets one of the criteria, "it may border on notability". This may meet the seventh, "has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network". There was a music video (I've seen screenshots here, but there's not much information about it, and I don't know if it was played on a major music network or not. Plus, the guideline is still only proposed. ShadowHalo 09:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a single by a very well known pop star. Removing it merely places a blank spot on her discography, which makes little sense, and there's plenty of opportunity for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the most important of singles should have there own articles. Eluchil404 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 14:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a link to the approprite section of the artist's article, or the artist's discography article. The page can be a section redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51 17 December 2006 (GMT).
Keep A single, albiet an early and unsuccessful one, by a very major and well-known artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Starblind. delldot | talk 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shakira or somewhere appropriate where her music career is discussed. Individual songs (even by famous artists) have to be exceptional (and not "borderline") to merit their own articles. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jay(Reply) 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara McKenzie-Smith[edit]

This artist does not seem notable and seems mainly to have been included because she is the mother of a Wikipedian Jpaulm. This user is also the sole editor of the page (excluding additional tags). Nobody23 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the wife of a notable British writer, John Rodker, and was very involved in the Bloomsbury Group, and a good friend of Trekkie Parsons, Leonard Woolf's lover. She was also an accomplished artist in her own right, although I agree that nobody has written a biography of her (yet). *Joan Rodker papers Jpaulm 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that defense is kind of ridiculous, Jpaulm. People don't get put on wikipedia because someone they know is famous. I'm sure there are thousands of people out there who are spouses of, friends of, or acquaintaces of, famous people. That doesn't make them notable in their own right. Google search of "Barbara Mckenzie-smith" returns 18 hits, and I think all of them are just copies of this wikipedia article.

Even supposing that her fame "by association" was justification for it's own article (I don't believe it is), We'd need evidence for all of these relationships from an actual external source. But it's irrelevant, because just because I might happen to be the husband of a barely notable radio personality, the friend of Leonard Nimoy, and a very active member of greenpeace, doesn't mean I'm notable. I could work all day in an artist's association, marry or befriend all the famous people I want, but it wouldn't necessarily make me of any interest. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. The main claim is that she was "associated with the Bloomsbury Group". The only sources apparently out there which state that are Wikipedia and its mirrors[59][60] . The existing mention in her husband's article is fine of course.Bwithh 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not associative. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Rodker. Redirects are cheap. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn I mean Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ohconfucius 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll replace it with a Redirect. Do I wait for the vote, or should I go ahead? Jpaulm 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I note to whoever replies to this: this user is reasonably new to Wikipedia; don't bite the newbies. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Monk's well reasoned argument. Redirect is inappropriate (unlikely search term since this person does not seem to be famous). Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree, User:Zunaid, not even a redirect! Jpaulm 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. Jay(Reply) 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Coombs[edit]

Does not pass WP:BIO. None of the listed items gives notability. Created by an account with apparent single purpose to publicize this person and his "achievements". Akihabara 14:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims of notability, unsourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akihabara, I'll accept the ruling, but this guy created a concept called "convergence". And that is something that's very big in the IT/Telecom industry. The problem I am having in writing the article is almost all the source material is out of print or never got indexed.User:RandMKaos

Then there seems to be a certain lack of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll withdrawl the entry. Please delete. I've removed any referencing links.User:RandMKaos

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shox technology[edit]

The article is purely speculative, therefore failing WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. It also fails WP:RS, as it has no sources at all. Finally, it is a non-notable subject. I couldn't find information about it on a Google search, since Nike now have created ShoX technology, therefore failing WP:N, as no non-trivial works have been published about it. 0L1 Talk Contribs 15:03 17/12/2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Just like to add that it was me who originally created the article when I was relatively inexperienced and wasn't familiar with Wikipedia notability policies, but now I realise that it doesn't deserve an article. 0L1 Talk Contribs 15:07 17/12/2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eon8-esque crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: disregarding self-contradictory arguments (merge requires keeping the article as a redirect with edit history preserved, otherwise the GFDL is violated), no consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland v Brazil (1938)[edit]

Whilst Poland's first game at a World Cup finals is notable, and deserves a mention on the Polish national team's page, Wikipedia is the not the place for what amounts to a match report. Nuttah68 15:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough to have a separate article. Most material can be included in the national team article instead, and for the match report as such, Wikipedia is not a news service, be it old news. Or as someone recently expressed on another AfD, Wikipedia is not ESPN. – Elisson • T • C • 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable match for the Poles, and it is more notable than most FA Cup finals, and it is also more notable than the Battle of Bramall Lane. --Carioca 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "we have an article on X, so why shouldn't Y be kept", is nothing more but a straw man. I've read the whole article and can't find a single thing that makes this match more notable than any other match in the World Cup, and general consensus is that we should not have articles on single matches unless they are notable, for example being a final match (such as the FA Cup finals), a match that featured very unusual events (such as the Battle of Bramall Lane) or a match that has made significant impact on football history (such as England v United States (1950)). 78 national teams have played a "first World Cup match", which means maybe 60-70 "first World Cup matches" in total (considering a few debutants have played each other in the debut). I doubt many of them would be notable enough to warrant a separate article, and this one is no exception. – Elisson • T • C • 21:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The World Cup debut of the Polish national team makes this game more notable than most (and the article asserts this notability in the first paragraph). No reason this shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia not made of paper. Ccscott 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean it asserts notability by claiming stating that the "1938 FIFA World Cup in France is still remembered by Polish fans of this sport as the one in which Poland national football team debuted"? You have to be kidding me. Well, for all I can say, Sweden-England on Ullevi in 2004 is still remembered by Swedish fans as the 100 year jubilee match of the Swedish FA. And Germany-Sweden in this year's World Cup is still remembered by Swedish fans at the match where Sweden were eliminated. But I wouldn't even consider creating articles on those matches as there are hundreds of matches "remembered by x fans as the match which y". That doesn't mean the match itself is notable. – Elisson • T • C • 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability derives from the fact this is the match "in which Poland national football team debuted". It isn't really relevant who remembers which games as what, but the fact remains that this was the national team's first game. This raises the notability of the match above most other first round matches and should qualify this subject for an article. Ccscott 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Just to clarify, it was the Polish team's first match in the World Cup finals. It wasn't their first ever match..... ChrisTheDude 14:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ccsott, we have, as said, 78 teams that have played a "first game" in the World Cup final tournaments. We have something like >200 national teams that have played a "first game" of any kind. A "first game" is not notable unless something unusual happened. – Elisson • T • C • 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am a little out of my element in this subject, but if the rule is that a single match should have an article if it is more notable than most matches I think this should qualify. The debut of a nation at a World Cup event is a relative rare event (78 of the almost 700 games played is not very much). Further, a quick google search reveals this match has been noted by many. It was named the top match in World Cup history by William Hill Sportsbook[[61]] and is described as "one of the greatest games of all time" on the official FIFA website[[62]]. Is this the most notable match in FIFA history? No, but If the standard is that the game has to be more notable than most, I think this match qualifies to have its own article. Ccscott 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single early round match can't be more important than a World Cup final (all of which have inherent notability). Even on EN, the Bramall Lane game is liklier to be a search topic, although it'll probably fall into insignificance in a few more years. -- 207.62.247.30 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is nothing more than soccercruft, and reads like it too. Ouch! Moreschi 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is Tymek 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) the author of this article.[reply]

There is just something I do not understand. You people are more than happy to delete my article while you stick to your stuff, thinking that what matters to an Englishman or a Swede also matters to everybody else. Mister Elisson writes in his wiki-works e.g. about the year 1904 in Swedish football league, but here he states that Wikipedia is not ESPN or "Wikipedia is not a news service, be it old news". Hypocrisy, isn't it?
- Disregarding the borderline personal attacks, I wonder how you fail to understand the difference between a seasonal summary (such as 1904 in Swedish football), and a summary one match of one day of the year? And I don't understand in which way the comment is relevant to this AfD. – Elisson • T • C • 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The span of time does not matter. Your works on seasons in Swedish soccer are just about same as my works on the 1938 game. How about ESPN stuff you mentioned before? (Tymek 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Someone stated that Poland vs. Brazil 1938 was not "more notable than any other match in the World Cup", adding that Battle of Bramall Lane or England v United States (1950) made a bigger impact on football history. Let me just ask - what impact did these games have? They are only remembered in England,just like the 1938 game is remembered in Poland. Or in other words - how can you judge from global point of view, which of these games was more important? It is impossible obviously. The 1938 game was unusual because of its emotions and 4 goals scored by Wilimowski, which had never happened before.
- They're only remembered in England? No? Anyone with an interrest in football history remembers or has heard about when the US beat England 1–0. I also heard about the Battle of Bramall Lane back in 2002. Still you're using a straw man. You can't say "we have an article on x, so why shouldn't we have an article on y". This discussion is about the notability of the 1938 match, not any other match. – Elisson • T • C • 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I would not argue. Surely England - USA game is remembered, but was it a crucial game from global point of view? About Battle of Bramall - ask someone in Brazil which game they know and the answer is obvious, I also never heard of this game (using your reasoning). I wonder how you fail to understand that English-language Wikipedia is for all English speakers all over the world, not only those in England or Sweden (Tymek 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Also - say, there is an article about some 1967 game New Zealand vs Fiji. This game may seem unimportant to Swedes or the English, but what if it is very important to the New Zealanders? Think fora while before you try to destroy somebody elses' work. Soccer is not only about games in England and 1911 season in Sweden
- I won't even comment this. You are obviusly way too emotionally involved in "your article" to discuss this matter in a reasonable way. – Elisson • T • C • 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why you don't comment on this? Surely I am involved in it, because it is part of my works on soccer in interwar Poland. Anyway, you miss one point - there will always be someone who wants to know the champion of Sweden in 1904 and there will always be someone who wants to know more about the 1938 Poland - Brazil game. You gave me no reasonable answers, claiming "straw man" or stating that I am too emotional. In other words - there are no reasons for deleting this article (Tymek 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

To Moreschi - if you don't like it, why do you care?
Merge into Poland national football team. Oldelpaso 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the worthwhile information into either 1938 FIFA World Cup or Poland national football team. As it stands the article doesn't know whether it's a match summary or a Poland in the 1938 World Cup summary. The match details are non-notable to me, as are things like the list of stand-by players left in Poland(!). The Poland's debut and youngest goalkeeper trivia should be kept somewhere though. aLii 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ccscott. Drew30319 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into Poland national football team. The match itself is not notable. --Angelo 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge seems logical - non-notable football match that was not extremely significant. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate: The Last Game (August 27, 1939) is an example of a notable match, demonstrating the cultural and historical significance of the match. This one isn't, sorry. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, delete and merge is not a valid option, its either delete or merge and redirect. Oldelpaso 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes it is - merge the content, and delete the article (this isn't a realistic redirect). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to mention that original title of this article was Polish Roster at World Cup France 1938, as I wrote not only about the game, but also about whole performance of Polish team during and before this event. however, the name was changed several times by God knows who, and finally somebody settled it as Poland V. Brazil which according to me does not reflect the article. BTW - Merry Xmas to all! (Tymek 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as spam (WP:CSD criterion G11). Guy (Help!) 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Domains International[edit]

WP:SPAM, ~~WP:Vanity (compare single purpose author's username to full URL provided for the company)~~, probably WP:COMPANY as well. A search on Google uncovered an entry at scam.com (link not working as I write this so can't say any more about it), and other hits suggest it's just a pyramid seller. I reckon it could be speedied as {{db-spam}} but I'll let it go through the more formal AfD process. DeLarge 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant advertising as shown by the referral link including an affiliate id. Demiurge 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy dlete - CSD G11 Pages that exist only to promote a company, product, or service --Mnem e son 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game bosses[edit]

I prodded it a few days ago but it was deprodded by User:Crzrussian citing a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Personally, I don't think the article takes any kind of notability into consideration, nor does it properly define what counts as a "video game boss" ("Nazrac (T-Mek)", wtf?). Also, the article sets itself up to be an unverifiable, unmanageable, original research-ridden piece of listcruft. I think it might also be superceded by Category:Computer and video game bosses. Axem Titanium 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's POV under the current definition which requires the bosses to be challenging, and removing that would make it unmaintainable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles are not [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Where any of the individual bosses have their own articles they can be categorised. --DeLarge 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the above comments. --tgheretford (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Sephiroth isn't hard! all you have to do is.... ok yeah, it's indiscriminate and OR, and there's no way that people will ever be satisfied with the inclusion criteria. Also, many games have multiple bosses, and challanging games will have multiple challanging bosses, without restrictions to genre or platform I think I can say without hyperbole that this list could have a hundred thousand items on it easily if it were sufficiently inclusive. Also, a quick reading reveals a significant content bias towards modern (IE playstation and later) games probably unintended by the author. I think my reaction as a (well, fairly) rational editor thinking "wait, you forgot Kefka!" shows how rapidly this could balloon and get unmaintainable. Wintermut3 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Danny Lilithborne 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is so crufty and large
CVG better take charge
I think it's going to be
Good enough to delete. TTV|talk|contribs|email 00:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad and ill defined for a workable list.-- danntm ^T _C 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmanageable list that would be better off as a category. Koweja 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list for the sake of having a list. At best this would make a good category. -Ryanbomber 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another one. The Kinslayer 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that Category:Computer and video game bosses is more or less the same as this list. I don't see a need for such a list to exist. --Pinkkeith 16:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic states and empires[edit]

from its title and its contents, it is obvious that it was created for Pan Turkism propaganda. I don't think, we have any such kind of articles (e.g.: Aryan states and empires) in Wikipedia now. --Pejman47 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has somehow some similarities to this: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Template:Turkish_History_Brief--Pejman47 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, this was voted for keep: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Template:Turkic-speaking..Baristarim. In any case, the criteria for TfDs is much more lax than for AfDs. See the relevant Wikipedia casework for more information. Baristarim 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the subjects of them were two different things. the later was only about the countries with an official turkic language, the second was created just for propaganda and was deleted by humblefool ® because of a "a nasty pan-turkic bias" an admin can view the deleted templates and articles and I invite him to compare this article to that template. The last thing: I don't thing, your vote campaigning (via email?) make the things different. --Pejman47 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThat you think it was created for Pan Turkism is your opinion, i dont think the article implies that all. It is a noteworthy list of states with a Turkic heritage and it does have academic footing, for example see Hugh Pope, 2005. Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World or Carter Vaughn Findley, 2004. The Turks in World History. --A.Garnet 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nomination following many edit-wars in Turkic-Persian articles. There is nothing in there for "pan-Turkist" propaganda, the comparison with "Aryan states and empires" is childish, in bad-faith and not academic. Turkic peoples and Turkic languages articles exist. This is not a template either. There is nothing wrong with such a list, there are many states that have been considered "Turkic" for many major academic works. I woud like to remind that, even though many editors tried to argue until the sky turned green how the usage of the word "Aryan" in the English language has definitely shifted from the anthropological definition, this has not gotten through to some people. "Turkic" has never suffered such a degeneration. The comparision is baseless: there is no such article Aryan peoples, nor are there serious academic sources that advocate such categorization. However, there are articles such as Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples The case here is similar to "Hellenic empires" or "Hellenic states". There is a similar article at Hellenistic civilization. Many of those states listed have been categorized as "Turkic" by major academic sources over the centuries. Extremely bad-faith nomination and unencyclopedic behavior. The actual countries listed have also been listed as "Turkic" by major academic and news organizations. If editors would take a close look at the article, they will see that arguments center on 5-6 states of 14th century Central Asia that have been listed, with arguments such as "Turkic-speaking, but not of origin" or "Turkic origin, but not of culture". That is not the basis for the article's deletion.Baristarim 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the template Turkic-speaking was voted to keep in the TfD that you mentioned Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Template:Turkic-speaking..Baristarim 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i corrected the link. and something else, do you consider pan turkism as an inusult? I just wanted to remind you that you have also used pan iranian many times (e.g. [63])--Pejman47 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, and calling the creators of this article as pan-Turkist is much worse. You reverted my addition of the reference from the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition, so don't be pretending that you were reverting some good ol' pan-Turkist. It is you who should get a grip. In any case, I would strongly suggest you to not engage in ad hominim attacks. Baristarim 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see the website of the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition, co-created by a professor of Harvard University, entitled "Turks: The journey of a thousand years: 600-1600 [64]..Baristarim 16:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite some disputes over the content of some sections, it's a fairly well defined list. This comment isn't part of the discussion, but wouldn't a list of "Aryan" nations be pretty short? "Pan-Aryanism" kinda got put out of business in May 1945, didn't it? ;-) Tubezone 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again, the motivation of the creators of this article is obvious. It is also POV. I don't have time to answer all of your long replies. (from that TfD, I have memorized your responses) (I will let the admins or users decide, by readying that article). and my last reply to you: do we have Semitic States, Arabic States or Iranian States or .... articles? and most of the sources provided are not academic. And it is also interesting that you have put e.g. Khazars Huns Kara-Khanid Khanate Later Tang Dynasty Later Jin Dynasty Later Han Dynasty in China Ghaznavid Empire Siberia Khanate and etc. by looking at those articles, every body who hasn't a solid idea before; will decide who has a "bad faith"

so, i let the admins decide; good luck--Pejman47 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put those in these, I've never edited the article. Also, they're in the disputed section, you can always bring up content disputes on the article's talk page. Some of the other articles you mention apparently already exist under different names. Tubezone 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely bad faith comments of non-academic character. Later Tang Dynasty Later Jin Dynasty Later Han Dynasty in China were founded by Shatuo Turks, see the relevant articles before you insult others by calling them pan-Turkist etc. Here is the link from Brittanica for Shatuo Turks [65]. This is really unacademic and insulting behavior for such nominations to take place. Baristarim 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The level of hate and unacademic behavior is astounding. From the article Late Tang dynasty: It was also the first in a series of three dynasties ruled by the Shatuo Turks,. Got any more questions? I suggest you read the relevant articles, make some research on the subject before insulting others of "pan-Turkism". Is the Brittanica also pan-Turkist? Baristarim 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why someone does not want to have a list of turkic states? This page is a good directory page for someone who wants to read about the history of Turks and Turkic states. If we don't have the list of Semitic States, Arabic States or Iranian States, then someone who has the knowledge and the sources must create them. If there is a problem on historical accuracy, then we must discuss it in the talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there already is Template:Semitic-speaking --A.Garnet 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.."Delete" proposal is nationalist aproach not the article.Some admins should take into consideration these all anti-Turkist attacks.Must ^TC 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Besides the fact that this article contains sountless POV, has no reliable sources, and serves Pan-Turkistic propaganda, there are no articles called List of Germanic states (containing Germany, USA, UK, etc) or a List of Slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria, etc) either ... Tājik 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik, you have been blocked countless times for edit warring and incivility on a wide range of Turkic-Persian articles, so please spare others the accusations of disruption. Many of those states have been called Turkic for centuries by major academic sources. There is nothing wrong with creating an article for states that have been founded by slavic peoples either. If it hasn't been done, that's not our concern. Please stop accusing others of racism. Criteria for AfDs is not the same as TfDs, and I would like to remind you that template Turkic speaking easily survived a TfD, and a template Semitic speaking also exists. This article is a simple grouping of states that have been founded by Turkic peoples over the ages. Your concerns center on 5-6 states in the list, and that with arguments such as "turkic origin, but not turkic speaking" or "turkic-speaking, but not of turkic-origin". Please take these disputes to the article's talk page. Maybe you should have gone to that Royal Academy of Arts exhibition I mentioned earlier :) I easily addressed another non-academic allegation that Pejman made about the three dynasties, so this shows what a bad faith nomination this is.Baristarim 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned above, if we don't have such pages like germanic states etc, we certainly must create them. We already have the page on Turkic states and trying to delete it means damaging wikipedia intentionally. Caglarkoca 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I dreaming or are there other articles at Arab world and Slavic Europe? I am sure that the creators of the article made a reasonable choice of words there. They could have also used "Turkic world" or "Turkic Eurasia". Tajik, you just said "there is no article "List of Slavic states grouping Russia and Bulgaria etc" - well, take a close look here and stop your insults of racism. And if I am not having problems with my eyes, I just saw Russia and Bulgaria shown together on a map. Such articles and templates already exist. Baristarim 02:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the fact that you didn't even know that there was a list of slavic countries listed under a same article, and your God-like affirmation to its non-existence, when it actually existed, casts serious doubts on your good faith and so-called knowledgability of the subject matter. Pleas stop throwing around affirmations of non-truths around; it is called disruption.Baristarim 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik, what utter non-sense have you been spewing around? Germanic Europe article also exists.. As well as Latin Europe And all this after your GOD-LIKE affirmations that "there are no Germanic states in one article!", "there are no Slavic states in one article!" These are your words: there are no articles called List of Germanic states (containing Germany, USA, UK, etc) or a List of Slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria, etc) either ... So may I ask what the hell are Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe and Latin Europe articles doing there? Not to mention Arab world.. Please, I really wanna hear your response after all those insults of pan-Turkism aimed at many editors of Wikipedia and your affirmations that there have never ever been such articles and that this article is racist, pan-Turkist and blah blah... Baristarim 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Europe regroups Germany and the UK, so your argument that "there are no lists or maps that regroup Germany/UK monsieur!!!" simply, and utterly, falls flat out I am afraid. I would be keeping it down if it weren't for the fact that certain users have been constantly edit warring on Turco-Persian articles for ages. This bad faith nomination is really the last straw. Baristarim 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe are only LISTS of PRESENT Slavic-speaking states ONLY in EUROPE. This article, however, is another attempt of Turkish nationalists to infiltrate Wikipedia with their POV. The article would be totally correct if it were only limitted to the present Turkic states, with a small notification that these nations also include large numbers of NOn-Turkic minorities (Russians, Kurds, etc). But this article is POV because it tries to establish the biased claim that these nations are "Turkic by nature". It also contains a totally POV section about history - of course the way Pan-Turkists want history to look like. All kinds of historical kingdoms and states - some of them still a big myth (Huns), some of them not really Turkic (Khwarezm Shahs, Ghaznavids) - are claimed as Turkic states, and the confusing intro does not justify ANYTHING. Tājik 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, FALSE... First of all, it is normal that there only the slavic states in Europe, since there have never been slavic states in Africa. If there were, I am sure the title of the article would have been modified to take that into account. This article also lists only the Turkic states in Eurasia, since there haven't been any Turkic states in South America. Secundo, this article lists current Turkic states, and those that have been defunct in 20th century to begin with, and then gives another list of states since the Gokturks. Slavic Europe does a similar thing, there are also the mentions of "Mongol invasion", "Ottoman invasion", "Holy Roman Empire", "Austria-Hungarian Empire", "Imperial Russia" in the article. Stop using the chewbacca defense and please stop trying to confuse other editors in to believing non-truths. The article's format is very similar to other similar articles. If you think that the article's history section could be better formatted, please raise those objections in its talk page. Personally, I would also prefer it to be extended so that it is not a simple list, but there are no editors that work on this article 24h a day, so give them a break. Of the whole list, your only objections center on 5-6 entities, and that only on grounds of "Turkic-speaking, but not of origin", or "Turkic-origin, but not of culture". They can all be addressed using the talk page. Some editors, including you, have been working to extend the history section so that it is more informative. So what is the problem? Baristarim 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are wrong! OF COURSE there are "Slavic states" outside of Europe: Kazakhstan's population is 1/3 slavic, most of Russia is in Asia, and even Alaska used to be Russian territory. There are countless Germanic states outside of Europe, including the USA, South Africa, and Australia. However, there no such a list containing all of these nations and propagating some sick Pan-Germanic or Pan-Slavic propaganda. None of these articles contains a list of pseudo-historical claims. THAT's the difference. Tājik 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again wrong.. The chewbacca defense at work again. Russia is already listed. Did you take a look at the article? The fact that Russia is transcontinental is not our business. As for Kazakhstan, its inclusion concerns the editors of that page, that's a content dispute more appropriate to its talk page. I would like to remind you that there are only "seven" nation-states that are listed there? There is no sick pan-turkic propaganda, otherwise Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, Iraq, Iran etc would have been included as well. There is no such list in this article, please stop spreading non-truths around. You first claimed that there was no such list, it was proven to be wrong. Than you said it was only for modern states, that was also proven to be wrong, since there are mentions of states of 13th century. Just keep going :) Baristarim 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles are better to be written by someone who knows the topic well enough. I find this article as well as Slavic Europe is wrong in more then a couple of things, so any efforts to improve them would be welcomed.Dreambringer 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful page. There are similar pages in Wikipedia, so why deleting the Turkic-related ones. The accusation of pan-?-ism is turned out be a main slogan of the ones who try to dispute every Turkic-related entry in Wikipedia. I'm wondering whether these attempts are the part of anti-Turkic propaganda. If it is, this would be a good arbitration case. Regards. E104421 10:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. Grandmaster 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple facts are listed there. No need to be agitatedneurobio 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Baristarim, Tubezone; the analogy with the Germanic/Slavic articles is compelling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply having a list of Turkic states does not and cannot serve any ideology. Listing one common factor about these countries is well within the scope of wikipedia. --Free smyrnan 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's next? Delete Turks?--Doktor Gonzo 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete subject that is exisiting in debates and discussions. If someone wants to find out about "Turkic States", why not to find the answer in Wikipedia?--Ulvi I. 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is usefull information 195.169.153.80 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is useful first of all. Academically reasanoble - there is a group of Turkic-speaking people. There is a number of publication on Turkic peoples and states. Just type in Amazon.com. Anyway, it is in spirit of Wikipedia - openness, democracy and inclusiveness.--Dacy69 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but with a mass of corrections, since there are a great number of mistakes in the article. All mentioned Autonomous Republics in Russia are just Republics now [66] or [67] or [68], in all mentioned Republics official language is Russian, and, in some cases, other secondary official languages. Next – I don’t get it why to mention all former Soviet Republics in defunct countries, because they are just the same countries, that mentioned in Nation states…Dreambringer 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, but clean up the problems noted by Dreambringer OinkOink 00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPodNova[edit]

Does not assert notability, does not meet WP:WEB... Paul^C/_T+ 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable filesharing site, only Google results are either trivial directory entries or forums/blogs. Demiurge 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Running, iPodNova is an unique torrent site, which provides iPod content through bittorent. it has more than 112,830 members^[1] & had uploaded more than 465 TBs of iPod optimized videos while IsoHunt the notable BitTorrent Tracker claim they have over 275.42 TBs of Torrent files. This wiki article isn't about advertising, it provides interesting information to people around the globe. You are kindly requested to keep this wiki page alive. --Szayat 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't really about the content of the site, in fact the site looks very well done. The problem is the lack of assertion of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can imagine why this would become a problem. If any website could just have an article on Wikipedia it would be impossible to make sure things were accurate (as it is things are very hard). Ironically, it seems the best way for torrent sites to gain notability is to get sued :/... That said, it seems that many other torrent sites have articles on wikipedia... I'm not really familiar with many of them, but how does this website compare? (Mininova, TorrentSpy, isoHunt, The Pirate Bay, Empornium - AFD AFD2, Suprnova.org) Are they more or less notable than iPodNova? Focus on the 3rd point of WP:WEB, where did you first hear about the site? Paul^C/_T+ 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - fails WP:WEB - Alexa rank: 34,464. --tgheretford (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonnotable website. Mytildebang 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Running I think it is interesting that this site is the only site on the internet that is ipod format exclusive. There isn't any non-video d/ls available, and all of the movies are mp4. Another interesting point about the site is that many of the ipod videos are optimized only for the ipod, (it will look grainy on a computer screen or tv screen, but great on the ipod) whereas the iTunes ipod offerings are made to be put on a bigger screen as well as on the ipod. -----Tokyogirl79 5:07 am 12/19/2006
Keep Running I think it is a valuable resource

Keep Running To answer the claim that iPodNova is not notable, I have to absolutely disagree. I came to it after seeing torrents from it on both Torrentspy AND Mininova, and I have since moved all my upload/download traffic exclusively to iPodNova, AND I have donated money to a site that has constantly and consistently been improving since I joined in April of 2006. To answer the negative comments about Google search results...I have to say that I don't know what search term was used, but when I entered "iPodNova", the very first result was iPodNova.net". The site is now at http://www.iPodNova.tv and I actually changed the links to reflect that (the site crashed and was down for a few days recently). The previous link that was available (www.ipodnova.net) wasn't correct, since it was actually http://ipodnova.net (no www. before it). And, some person changed the membership information here on wikipedia from factually accurate information to factually inaccurate information. This has been corrected today, and hopefully will remain as is. I think a site that has well over 100,000 users, and is steadily growing, gets such positive feedback in the forums from its users, provides so much help to its users, and provides a variety of content that is not found anywhere else, specifically created for iPods...but that can be viewed with or without an iPod, deserves credit for being notable, and not criticism. It is still less than a year old, I believe, and the growth has been amazing. It is a MUCH better site than isohunt (which, in my opinion, absolutely sucks) and Torrentspy. It is well done all around, and this article should be allowed to remain, as it provides information on a valuable and useful resource, and a torrent index site that is better than others out there. Finally, I would never have signed up here at wikipedia if I hadn't seen this article linked on the forums over on iPodNova.tv JDRR22

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (footballer)[edit]

No sign of passing WP:BIO. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Comes close, as in the squad of a second-tier Scottish football league side, but until he actually makes his debut, he doesn't quite cut it. - fchd 17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No first-team appearances. Catchpole 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No first-team appearances and Clyde do not come under WP:BIO's proviso of "a club of sufficient stature". Qwghlm 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm, with no prejudice to recreation if he goes on to have a professional career of some significance in the future. Oldelpaso 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fchd. If and when he makes even one professional appearance, he'll fulfill WP:BIO and will be fine. At the moment he isn't. Loganberry (Talk) 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Noodle Soup[edit]

Is this worthy of an article? Voortle 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chicken soup, the song is not notable enough. And the article stinks. If kept, rename to "Chicken Noodle Soup (song)". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't redirect it; the article is not about the soup. Chicken noodle soup (without caps) already exists as a redirect. If it fails notability, just delete. I suspect that's what'll happen, since Young B has already been deleted and protected as a non-notable rapper.[69] --DeLarge 16:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But people who look up "Chicken Noodle Soup" will want the soup. They won't want an unhelpful "This page doesn't exist" notice. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not omnisicient enough to know what people will want when they type a term in the search box. They might even be looking for the song we're trying to delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and neither are its editors. And as per WP:CAPS, we don't need a specifically created redirect page: "If, after the first word, the article title is all initial lower case then the match is again case-insensitive." --DeLarge 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't seem to be case-insensitive, but I don't care all that much. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —EdGl 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeLarge is right, you don't need a separate redirect for the uppercase, and if the rapper's nn, then the song is even more so. delldot | talk 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delldot. Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - Its already in the DJ Webstar article. dposse 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jay(Reply) 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berit Kjos[edit]

Weak Delete Notability not established, seems to run of the mill for that to happen. Just H 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because she is the only crank to put Tolkien in a theological context, besides over 44K ghits Alf photoman 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and kill the Google test. All references are from one site, which doesn't even seem reliable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Crest[edit]

Neutral bump from speedy, because A7 doesn't cover residential complexes. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. —EdGl 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep - It has way more than enough information, has been worked on for a period of time, and it's notable enough! Insanephantom 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable housing complex. TJ Spyke 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator here, and I created this article because there were many of these types of articles in Wikipedia, especially the ones about Hong Kong private residential estates - should all of them be deleted because none of them notable? I feel that it is good for Wikipedia to have articles about lesser known places and residential - notability is always disputed. typhoonchaser 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There are so many of them already, and it is useful for people searching for minor stuff. Insanephantom 05:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in invoking the Pokemon defense, or the I like it argument. I tagged it for speedy, as I see absolutely nothing notable about it, and what's more, I don't see any assertion of notability. This is just another Hong Kong private housing estate. The keep advocates above admit as much. Almost all of the residential developments by the major developers over the last 30 odd years have followed this format (similar facilities, no of units, etc). Only the developer is notable. One hit in Google archive, 95 unique Ghits, most of which are wiki and mirrors, the developer's own site, or are Government sites in relation to infrastructure. This is not like Amoy Gardens (SARS), or Mei Foo Sun Chuen (biggest mass housing estate in HK). Ohconfucius 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said 'I like it'. Honestly, I don't see any sense in deleting something that has obviously a lot of work put into it. As I said, it's a good reference for people interested. Insanephantom 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks "multiple third-party non-trivial coverage" to prove its notability. Mere existence is not good enough. And yes, other articles on private residences that do not assert notability should be deleted as well. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the article's talk page, it is clear that a lot of work has been done to this article. It's too late to consider deletion. Thousands of other articles may meet the AfD criteria in this way, and they should be deleted before this, since this has more work in. I may just not be a deletionist, but in fact, I once had to do research on housing estates in Hong Kong (I live there), and the information from Wikipedia can be really useful if they have articles. Insanephantom 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totaly non-notable housing complex. "there are other non notable articles on WP" is not an argument in favor of keeping, but rather a call to action to AfD those, as well. Isarig 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I would encourage a cleanup of the later sections, which read more like a bulleted list from a brochure than an encyclopedia article. But issues re. sourcing have at least been partially addressed since the AFD started. Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Rescue Mission[edit]

Charity, which whilst I'm sure it is worthy, offers no notability of any form Nuttah68 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable, and possible OR since there are no sources. Fails WP:ORG. –The Gr e at Llama^moo? 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is in the eye of the beholder - there are thousands of articles about places many have never heard of. Furthermore, as for sources, give it a week and it should pick up. Even so, if not having sources in an article automatically meant deletion, half of the articles today would be gone in a heartbeat, even "notable" ones. Hit the random article button a few times, and you'll see what I mean. --Jay(Reply) 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not being sourced isn't grounds for deletion. Sources not existing is, though, and I don't think they do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some sources. I hope that can resolve the issue. Jay(Reply) 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is asserted and sources provided per WP:N and WP:V. As it stands this is just an interesting history article that restates what's on the mission's web page. Tubezone 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean to sound over-the-top here, but someone has taken the time to write this article, fairly well I must say, and the deletionist attitude being presented here is not justified by naming guidelines all over the alphabet. I don't see the harm in leaving the article on Wikipedia. There are stubs that don't even approach the detail of this article, and yet they are left alone, with no calls to delete them. Yes, there are lines that must be upheld, however, this article is well within bounds. Furthermore, this article is not on a controversial issue, and to put it under the same scrutiny as a more controversial article is ludicrous. Jay(Reply) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now, Jay, you're an admin, you know this just isn't true. Lots of long articles about school, churches, etc. that aren't controversial, get deleted all the time, on exactly the basis I brought up. I also would really rather not see this AfD get run up the flagpole when someone else wants to keep an article that can't pass the notability criteria. Tubezone 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would like to draw attention to this category, which highlights several articles on the same topic. You are not suggesting that we go ahead and delete those to, are you? --Jay(Reply) 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I take it you've read WP:INN? Also, that's like 12 rescue missions out of , what, thousands? (BTW, Pacific Garden Mission probably ought to have an article, coming up with at least a dozen media cites for that should be a snap). "Keep it, it doesn't hurt anything" - I'll try to maintain civility here, and not comment other than to say that argument gets ignored about a dozen times a day. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's one for you: WP:IAR. Rescue mission out of a thousand you say? Big deal, I wouldn't mind having an article on every one. As for the Pacific Garden Mission, make an article for it—no one is stopping you; the "this topic doesn't have an article" argument is probably just as ignored. Has it ever occurred to you that WP has grown to 1.5+M articles because small topics (such as this) have articles written about them? I'll also try to maintain civility here by simply saying perhaps you could use a break from AfD. --Jay(Reply) 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's one for you, sound familiar? For clarification, I won't generally break any rules. If a job needs to get done, there is a way it can be done without breaking the rules, if it is a legit job. I don't see any extraordinary circumstances here demanding IAR, if there are any, what are they? AAMOF, I think PGM does deserve an article, although I'm not much on writing articles on religous stuff, if no one beats me to it, I will do it at some point (after all, it's in Chicago) I just happened to mention PGM tangentially as something that needs an article, not as an argument for or against deletion of this one. You might like an article on every rescue mission in the country, but at this point, the notability guidelines don't support that, and (Jesus, tautology) as I pointed out before, similar non-notable religious organizations are getting zapped - sometimes en masse - now you want to suggest that a whole series of articles on rescue missions would be apropo for WP? Yeah, I could use a break from AfD's.. OTOH, God made many different kinds of Wikipedians, some like discussing AfD's, others want to create in-depth Pokemon articles. Tubezone 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "I will do it..." is the same good intention that the new user had when writing this article; unfortunately, they had to get a taste of the good ol' wikiprocess. All I will say is that no one is stopping you from creating any article; go ahead (hopefully you won't find yourself here ;). As for my mentioning of IAR, it was to illustrate a point that any essay, guideline, etc. that can be brought up as "case law" in this matter can easily be contradicted by another policy or guideline (and I really don't see what you're trying to get at by quoting my RfA - administrator rules are very different from article guidelines—the subject of this debate.) I am deeply concerned that you have made this debate a personal matter. If you would like to discuss any more ideologies etc, there is more than enough room on my talk page. I've said everything I have to say. --Jay(Reply) 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um... No it isn't within bounds. There are no sources outside of the website itself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you looked at the article recently? There is clearly a source from the local newspaper of Lima, Ohio. Jay(Reply) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, one source from the city newspaper of Lima. Teeny bit better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You said that there were no sources, and well, look, there are. There is still time to re-adjust your position. I imagine that if you came across the article, you wouldn't have taken the time to go through all this wiki-process to have it deleted. Jay(Reply) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would have. But are you suggesting that "not worth the process" is a reason to keep? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember now, the process can yield two different results. What I meant by my comment was that this isn't the grand-slam delete case, like most of the articles listed here. Jay(Reply) 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it's pretty close to a slam-dunk speedy, very little notability is being asserted. Tubezone 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        CSD A7; not even close. You are mistaking notability for popularity - two different things. If this article were to say simply, "LMR gives food to the homeless", I would have speedied it when I originally came across it. However, the article clearly mentions how LMR is involved with Lima, Ohio, and furthermore, how it is apart of the global city mission movement—that is what makes it notable. The fact that it has never been on CNN or that it doesn't have 500,000 search engine results (indicative of popularity) does not mean that the subject is not notable. --Jay(Reply) 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The notability guidelines are pretty clear. The subject of this article doesn't even assert a claim to meeting even one of them. If it did, I'm sure you'd have brought it up by now. So tagged. 07:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        The sub-argument here is on whether or not the article should have been removed per CSD—it shouldn't have, and this was addressed in my previous comment (further upheld by LS). You have solid points on everything else in this debate (which ironically is much longer than the article in question), however, your CSD claim should be put to rest. --Jay(Reply) 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you have such an issue with this article? After you tagged you noted "No notability asserted, just another rescue mission". Why don't you go tag other rescue mission articles then? Some of them don't even list any references at all, and they all contain similar information to this article. So why aren't those being disputed? 208.10.0.114 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lima, Ohio. Just H 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jay Drew30319 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a confluence of WP:LOCAL and WP:ORG/WP:CORP. This is a city-wide mission which is part of a larger association and doesn't merit an individual article. Independent coverage extends to a single local news article. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability (being a mission is not inherently notable). That this organisation exists and functions is not good enough to warrant its inclusion. Has it received any type of award/recognition for its good work (which has been published in third-party reliable sources)? Has it received state-wide or national coverage? Has it achieved fame or notoriety in any other way? Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added information regarding Lima Rescue Mission being the second oldest gospel rescue mission in Ohio and the only facility of its kind in west central Ohio. Some may find that information to be notable, while I am sure others will still take issue. Aaron01 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's too large to merge, and per WP:LOCAL, "Eventually, as the article becomes overly large due to more verifiable information being added, information on individual places can be broken out into individual articles. This process should begin with those places which have the most verifiable information on them, and therefore have the strongest case for a stand-alone article. See below for suggestions on how to do this." This justifies the existence of this article. --Rory096 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any organization that's existed for 100 years gets a sort of "special attention," from me. We can obviously verify that this group exists, and that it has had an impact on its community. I see here that the AfD regulars seem to be leaning to delete -- I can sort've see both sides of the picture, personally, but I do worry that sometimes we get too "jaded" (after deleting 100 articles under prod, I know I get a bit deletionist). A7 certainly wouldn't be appropriate, for this one, and even AfD, I'm not so sure. I notice this one hasn't been closed, yet -- it's a very close call to make, and I'd encourage the closing admin to think it over carefully. Luna Santin 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Falls[edit]

Contested speedy deletion candidate. An abandoned housing project somewhere, has no sources, and does not sound in the least notable. Sandstein 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Extremely non-notable. —EdGl 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. → JARED ^(t) 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page does not assert the subject's notability, and it doesn't seem to be very notable from Google. "Sienna Falls" "Burwood East" turns up one result from Google,[70] and Sienna Falls seems to be featured in Whitehorse Leader on 30 June 2004 (AEST) according to that result,[71] but the development is seems nonetheless generally non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goh wz (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jay(Reply) 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Juice Music[edit]

NN record label and obvious conflict of interest (article created by Olive Juice Music (talk · contribs)). "DIY" labels are always inherently non-notable (with no exceptions that I know of). See afd below for a related article. —EdGl 18:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign that this label has received significant third-party coverage that would allow us to construct a meaningful article. Pascal.Tesson 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwervon![edit]

NN band that fails WP:BAND. There is also a conflict of interest here - see the afd above (both articles created by the same user). —EdGl 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. → JARED ^(t) 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion No notability asserted. Pascal.Tesson 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUIC[edit]

From what I can gather from the article, it's about a phrase that a rapper repeats in one of his songs.. This returns no significant Google hits, and this seems non-notable. Who would want information on a single repeated phrase in a specific song? Cruft. Split Infinity ^(talk) 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FUIC a soldier like me FUIC a soldier like me FUIC a soldier like me. --- RockMFR 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not even a dicdef, as it's not defined. Tevildo 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not down with OPP. Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tevildo. --Metropolitan90 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd suggest adding it to the song's article, but it doesn't have one. —ShadowHalo 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wailmer_Island[edit]

The subject seems to be a very location within the pokemon video game series. I can understand including pokemon and pokemon-trivia on wikipedia, but this is a little ridiculous. Googling for "Wailmer island" returns 26 hits, and the page seems to have little context. The subject is very obscure -- I don't think it deserves it's own page. Monk of the highest order^(t) 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Very, very, very, very non-notable. At the most, a smerge with Hoenn could be done. TTV|talk|contribs|email 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sbfj 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MAKE IT DIE! completely pointless just add it to a pokemon article
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doesn't even pass the Pokemon Test. Koweja 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But looking at that infobox at the bottom, there may some work ahead.... The Kinslayer 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Network Continuity Announcers[edit]

Ok, as per what I posted in Talk:ITV, a week ago I think it is time for a reorganisation of articles about ITV. This one stands out in particular as something I beleive action is needed about.

In the first instance I think we need to consider whether this article is encyclopedic at all, IMHO it isnt really do we have an article like this for every broadcaster in the world?

If it is encyclopedic, we then need to consider the correctness of the article. It seems to get lost in a large amount of confusion on here of the distinction between the ITV network*, ITV plc**, and ITV 1***. The article is entitled ITV Network continuity announcers. However, AFAICT stv and UTV have their own branding and continuity? In which case the article would be better entitled "ITV 1 continuity announcers" or given that it discusses the other ITV plc channels "ITV plc continuity announcers".

* A network of broadcasting franchises.

** A company owning 11 of the 17 franchises (15 regional, 1 breakfast, and 1 Teletext)

*** A brand name used by 12 of the 15 regions

Pit-yacker 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from [[User talk:GMc by Pit-yacker:

Well, I don't have that much to do with ITV Network Continuity Announcers, I only moved the content from ITV1 Network Continuity Announcers to that page. I personally think it should be deleted, as it doesn't have much point to it. I also think ITV pages need a clean up, but I think the ITV1 article should stay.GMc^talk 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD nomination was incomplete. I have added it to the latest deletion log page. --tgheretford (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. ITVcruft. Bwithh 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you haven't seen ITV Idents and Presentation yet..! To be honest, there is quite quite a bit of ITVcruft that needs to be reorganised or removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tghe-retford (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. And make sure ITV Idents and Presentation gets obliterated too. The JPS ^{talk to me}
Delete. It may be worth bumping their names up to ITV1, if and only if we have sources. Eludium-q36 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walts[edit]

unsourced article; dictionary definition at best John Broughton | Talk 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Heimstern Läufer 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Heimstern Läufer. It's unsourced/unverified to boot. Agent 86 11:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somni[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Either delete or transwiki. Split Infinity ^(talk) 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Sleep if needed. And somnus (combining form somni--) is Latin, not Greek (which is ύπνος (hypnos)). --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki - per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since this article contains nothing more than a basic dictionary definition. Jayden54 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Games[edit]

Non-notable gaming website. Low Alexa/Google stats, if that's your thing. Prod removed by User:Fullair. --- RockMFR 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fials WP:WEB and WP:CORP. --Tarret 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:V, and I can't find anything notable through Google. Jayden54 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarret.---RWR8189 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEB. Koweja 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note: I did a Google site search on those two news websites mentioned in this AfD for Sedona Underground (because I thought someone should) and came up blank on both. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona Underground[edit]

Speedy deleted in September as A7, re-created almost immediately by the same editor with what looks like the same content, tagged today as G11 (blatant spam). Not sure about thet, but I don't see any credible evidence of notability or of non-trivial independent sources. Plenty of spammy-looking weblinks, not much in the way of wikilinks (in or out). Guy (Help!) 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Chandler, never seen
Any stories on 12 or 3
It means something at our wiki:
It gets a speedy delete! TTV|talk|contribs|email 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few things I've actually heard of, besides the World Cup match, on AfD. On the other hand, I am a connoisseur of hoaxes and conspiracy theories, in addition to being an artist, and I can't quite figure out why it is so familiar. My local news stations seems not to have heard of the country Saudi Arabia so I'm not sure that that rates very high. KP Botany 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no connection to any business. For people in the Pheonix area, anything north of the Mogollon Rim often is not covered by the metropolitan's media sources, so any arts community must seem surprise. Most of the people on the list don't watch television, let alone have one. However, in the Verde Valley, specifically Sedona, the local, non-gallery art scene is expanding rapidly as stories covered by two other newspapers: Verde Independent and The Red Rock Review and a Sedona TV 16, a public access channel for local residents. Foxthepoet 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems a bit WP:LOCAL to me, and the newsletter coverage seems to back this up. The real reason for my !vote is the fact that the article cites no "multiple third-party reliable sources" verifying any of the info in it, nor as a measure of notability. In addition the article is crufty in the extreme (cruft == high level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedic "arm's length" treatment of the subject in question). Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wouldn't even consider this notable on a local level. Zilch in the way of third party sources and Google results for the term "sedona underground" show zilch in the way of non-wiki links, other than Foxthepoet's MySpace. Spammy listcruft. ⇔ EntChickie 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nubmuffin[edit]

I don't even understand what this article is about. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not like the page defines nubmuffin at all, anyways. Split Infinity ^(talk) 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently it was recreated. Split Infinity ^(talk) 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. European Society Oxford University[edit]

Tagged as A7 but notability is asserted. Looks plausible but maybe halo effect from all the important but not immediately obviously connected names. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student society, despite name-dropping Winston Churchill and including a brief history of postwar Europe. The only external source is a student newspaper, specifically disallowed under WP:ORG. Demiurge 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student society. Nuttah68 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demiurge. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete this - well, to call it original research is being too kind. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15 synopsis[edit]

Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Straight from that official policy page: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. -- Wikipedical 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M44 (Adelaide Bus)[edit]

An article on an individual bus route is trivial – Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. Also, it is not individually notable; its online references are essentially limited to the bus company which operates it and the system to which it belongs. Besides that, as far as I'm aware, there is no precedent for such articles on Wikipedia, although there are lists of collective bus route series. cj | talk 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kill Category:Bus Routes in Adelaide if this is deleted. --- RockMFR 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for once I can actually say Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. A more general article on AdMet is welcome if it can be sourced and is not just a port of the TT. SM247^{My Talk} 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Adelaide Metro. --- RockMFR 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, meant AdMet services, which can probably just be part of the above page. SM247^{My Talk} 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wow! If we had an article for every bus route in the world... Anyway, per nom - The RSJ 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bus route does not deserve an article. Neither does a mailbox or a utility pole. Edison 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus routes often change and are not worth recording. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, invididual bus route articles with no specific history are generally not notable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable bus route - I catch another Adelaide Metro service, one of over a hundred. Delete category as well, per RockMFR. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zorg: Recovered Reality[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable manga: fails WP:V: it doesn't have a publisher, so why should it have a page on an encyclopedia? No Google hits[72], not for the Japanese title [73], nor for the author plus Zorg[74], nor for the author alone [75]. Fram 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unpublished fanga. Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; as Zunaid says, no prejudice against an article being created with reliable sources that discuss the term (as opposed to using it). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signspotting[edit]

I can find no reference to this term unrelated to the book of the same name. Pjbflynn 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems legit to me. → JARED ^(t) 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has potential. Battle Ape 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT ("signspotting is a relatively new phenomena...") and for lack of "multiple third-party reliable sources" to prove the notability of this hobby as a so-named phenomenon. Pictures of funny signs collected and published in a book or on a website doesn't make "signspotting" a phenomenon in and of itself, it merely means that some people like collecting pictures of funny signs. Like the nominator, I can ONLY find ref's to the book and the website in this Google search. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism - doesn't pass the Google test. SteveBaker 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question If this does get deleted, if i manage to find a few more sources and information in the future would i be allowed to start it again? Simply south 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: yes you may so long as it is not simply a "reposting of already deleted content". In other words, the article should be better in some way, be that in the form of extra info, extra references, whatever. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Simply south 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy alane wright[edit]

Alright, a few things. One it appears the subject of this page created this page. Secondly, I can't find any sources on her music career. Thirdly, it seems her acting has been limited to minor one time roles. No opinion in the matter. Yanksox 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity, violates WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO. Also violates naming convention with the lack of capitalization, but that's an easily solved matter if it's kept. John Reaves 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. → JARED ^(t) 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO, possible WP:COI. Mytildebang 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Get rid. -IceCreamAntisocial 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Def La Desh is a popular music group. Wendy Alane Wright is the lead singer. Def La Desh had 2 hit records that charted, "Feel The Rhythm"and Tear It Up." They were one of the very first female rap groups on the music scene. -Spaceplanner 12:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of women with very long hair[edit]

Subjective, uneyclopedic. Delete. Yanksox 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual links are fine, but they stand alone without the subjective, incomplete and ephemeral (hairdressers) article.--Anthony.bradbury 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, I have removed part of it. Do you now find the article okay? Longhairadmirer 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burn, per the nominator. Also, I think that the list wouldn't be very helpful anyway. PullToOpen 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a rather new list. Give us a chance to work on it, and suggest constructive changes instead. It is only a list article, not an encyclipedic article. It is not subjective, since it has well-defined criteria. If you wan't to delete a list article, plese refer to a formal Wikipedia criteria for that. Longhairadmirer 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't have well defined criteria. It doesn't really have criteria, the mere title of the article is almost enough for deletion. This is not useful, not encyclipedia, which you just admitted. If you look at the upper left hand corner you see "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia." This article doesn't belong here. Yanksox 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, are we talking about long or long cat loooooooooong? Yanksox 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria is simply "Famous women with waist length hair or longer". Famous mean that they must fulfill WP:BIO. I don't see the subjectivity. This is a list article, meaning that is lists encyclopedic articles. A list article may refer to a main article, which in this case seemes to be the article about hair fetishism. There is a large interest for this list, since many men adore women who decide to have long hair. Would the article be acceptable if it did not contain nude models? Mange01 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you stating that Wikipedia exists for any or all fetishes? This isn't a use of promotion for some guy to click links. It's acceptable to have an article about the fetish, but this is subjective to define "long" and just keep any maintance. Yanksox 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Examples of other similar list articles: List of famous tall men, List of famous short men, List of famous tall women, List of big-bust models and performers, etc. Please formulte a consistent principle regarding these lists. And please suggest how this article can be improved. I thought wikipedia was about improving articles rather than deleting. Longhairadmirer 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- See that last comment you made is an easy cop out. Yes, we are about knowledge. Yes, we are about improving our quality. But we need to take away what really isn't essential. This isn't new knowledge, this is connecting things that alreadly exist and is extremely subjective and doesn't add to the quality of the 'pedia. Yanksox 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is probably impossible to give an exact and verifiable defininition of the items in this list (the exact length of hair changes every day, in most cases nobody measures it etc.) - so WP:V is an issue here. --Ioannes Pragensis 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ioannes Pragensis. Listcruft like this in general is not terribly wondeful. Moreschi 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was also PROD'd[76], so tag on contested PROD as rationale. Yanksox 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Ioannes, should this also include any "famous" woman who every had long hair at any given point? --Dmz5 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep (I think your question is answered by the first sentence in the article) 193.10.250.5 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of the list is arbitrary, lacks any added value, lacks sources, and I'm not sure what useful purpose it serves.-- danntm ^T _C 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or I'll be forced to include my neighbors whose notability would be limited to waist-long hair Alf photoman 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What constitutes very long is biased, and a specific cutoff point would be arbitrary. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this type of list should exist, it should be as a category. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Said category does exits, and is also up for deletion. See here. Tabercil 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ioannes Pragensis. Given how hair lengths can change drastically, said list would be in danger of on-going obsolescence. Tabercil 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It very informitive to KNOW who has LONG HAIR

I for one did not not know some of those ladies

PLEASE add more names this is an INTERESTING search if I may say so

John W. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.214 (talk • contribs) 20:00, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

- WP:ILIKEIT is unpersuasive. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mange01. Edison 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Determining what length is long would be too subjective (and the list would still be utterly pointless). - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Crystallina 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It may even be original research. Hair length is unlike physical anatomical height, and may vary if the subject decides to have it cut. Who's going to police the claim and remove those who have had it cut? Ohconfucius 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to the arguments raised above, this is not a defining characteristic, which makes this merely a random list of random people who happen (for whatever unknown reasons) to have one trivial point of commonality. Furthermore, it's not an inherent characteristic, but is subject to change without notice. There is no possible useful information to be gathered from this list; it is pure trivia. Fetishistic listcruft. Xtifr _tälk 08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the above assertion that this indicates bias against nude models. I question any list or category based on physical characteristics when that is not the purpose for the subjects' notability. I question in the strongest possible terms such a list or category when the subject can change that characteristic arbitrarily during their career. How many actresses have had long hair in some roles and short hair in others? Any criterion of distinction that is so mutable does not distinguish at all. Serpent's Choice 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can assure you that all of these women, especially those with knee length hair, thigh length hair, etc, are famous for their very long hair, not only in long hair fetishism pages. They often get attention for their hair in main steam media. Longhairadmirer 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing WP:V. Similar problems as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination). TerriersFan 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection of information, and there seems little chance of WP:V. Valrith 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 62.135.48.117 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for keeping the article:
- No strong argument for deleting it has been presented above.
- This information is not compiled anywhere on the internet, but is spread over various long hair fetshism publications, discussion groups, etc. In some cases modelling agencies and similar state hair length in terms like "very long" or "long", but without a clearly defined criterion. Thus, it is not simply list cruft described in WP:NOT.
- The criterion is well-defined, and can be verified from photos, and in many cases form long hair fetishist publiciations. We have removed couple of articles that do not fulfill the requirements. No discussion has been raised about this, proofing that this is not an issue. Thus it fulfills WP:V.
- Two similar list articles were created a year ago, but with less well-defined criteria. One of them was deleted. If this article is deleted, it will probably be created over and over again by other people than me.
- The talk page of the article has the character of a WikiProject page, with a to-do list of articles about famous people that should be created. So the page will contribute to Wikipedia biographic articles!

Question: Should the article be renamed "Women famous for their very long hair", or be transformed into a wikiproject? Longhairadmirer 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; how do you measure hair length anyway (pulled straight, when in natural shape, or what?) Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent an objective definition in secondary sources of how long is considered "very". And some sources for the list itself. And a credible reason for actually giving a shit. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect. Yanksox 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuri warriors[edit]

The article creator misspelled the article title; the article is already located here. I would suggest to either delete or redirect it. Split Infinity ^(talk) 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, then, and in the meantime it should be a redirect. No question. Unfortunately, now that the article's on AFD, we have to wait until the AFD is over before we can even make it a redirect, right? --Quuxplusone 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected. I don't see why we should wait -- I see no reason to expect a redirect would be controversial. It's not as though anyone would argue to keep the article at the misspelled title. I think it's worth keeping around as a redirect; redirects are cheap, and it seems like a reasonable misspelling. Shimeru 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LivISOC[edit]

Student organizations at one particular university are rarely notable, and this one is not. An attempt to have the article redirected to the university page and a paragraph added to that page has been repeatedly rejected by the original author, therefore this AfD nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Zoe", I don't appreciate your very biased opinion at all and would prefer for you to keep it to youself rather than deleting other peoples hardwork and valid contributions. LJMU-ISOC may be very hard to notice from your part of the world but in Liverpool UK it is one of the most active and dynamic student societies. I would advice you to redirect yourself and your efforts for a more humane purpose rather than deleting and redirecting Islamic Society articles. We will get official Wikipedia clarification concerning the repeated abuse from seemingly Islamophobic quasi-editors. User:Seljuk Soldier|(talk) 20:43, 17 December 2006 (BST)

I knew this was coming. Have to throw out the Islamophobia card, don't you? Coudln't possibly be your lack of understanding of Wikipedia, it has to an ulterior motive on my part. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only assertion of notability is the awards, and all but one award is from within Liverpool University. The exception is "3rd Best UK Islamic Society, 2005 Muslim Student Awards, UK" which, in my opinion, does not establish notability. Demiurge 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also have limited IQ. - crz crztalk 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Wikipedia is not a free campus society webhost Bwithh 21:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also if stuff like this keeps happening, a ban is called for. Danny Lilithborne 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Danny. I'm tired of legitimate redirects being reverted. Ohconfucius 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out!!!! --Brianyoumans 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not cite multiple third-party reliable sources indicating its notability. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series[edit]

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this will be the article's second nomination, the first one closing with no concensus reached. Also, I'd like to ask why this nomination is "on top" of the other one (see the page history). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was asking why the second nomination is on the same page as the first, more specifically, this diff, I didn't say anything about the nomination's subject. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per this diff; the discussion does not seem to have been formatted properly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10 by Infrogmation. Tevildo 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth perry[edit]

According to a Google search, there is no such beast called the Mammoth Perry. An obvious hoax. Split Infinity ^(talk) 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As hoax. Delta Tango • Talk 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- 207.62.247.30 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn. Wasn't logged in ... -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. → JARED ^(t) 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a hoax Jayden54 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W00t[edit]

The article is pure original research and fails verifiability. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable published works about "w00t". Delete this for the ~~good of Wikipedia~~ stated policy reasons. - crz crztalk 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can spell it any way you want, but it still fails WP:OR and WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Err, see, it's mentioned everywhere and has become part of common lingo.[77][78]. Game over, please. Yanksox 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT a dictionary, Nick. - crz crztalk 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not defining it, it's gone outside of the point of being part of speech to something that is accepted like "dude" or "wicked." Yanksox 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. More proper. Yanksox 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not find this article particularly informative. Its OR, ~~but~~ and it just seems out of place here in Wikipedia. I would recommend delete, seems more like a dictionary entry. Navou ^talk 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and leave open the possibility of a smerge if things are verified. Gosh, I use this on Yanksox's talk page, and then all of a sudden... CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Crz's world. Yanksox 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree with Yanksox, redirecting to the List of Internet slang phrases article seems the right option, unless we can get some references in this article. Jayden54 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Query Are there any actual objections to redirection? Navou ^talk 22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect Its own article is not particularly necessary, but there's no reason we shouldn't assume that this is a very possible search term. -- Kicking222 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the appropriate entry on List of Internet slang phrases, any objections to the performance of a redirect? It seems this is the forming consensus. Navou ^talk 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect Per Jayden54 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redlock (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per Kicking222. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent article! Systemex 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love the word w00t, I use it all the time, its a decent article with history on the word, whats the problem here? Mozman 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... have you read the nomination? It's states the problem pretty clearly. - crz crztalk 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: either keep ot redirect. Widely recognized internet slang expression. But the page is in definite need of references. — RJH (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; I thought someone said they'd added it to the list, but when I took a look just now it wasn't there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for any confusion. I had removed w00t from the List of Internet slang phrases a couple of times. I try to keep a close watch on that page to make sure things stay sourced. It tends to get out of hand very quickly over there. I have little opinion on the subject, but I would vote for a redirect over a deletion. It's a fairly common term now. --Onorem 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added it in w/ a source. Yanksox 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's noteworthy. It's not internet slang, even if the spelling is. 70.106.210.112 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anomo 12:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the good of Wikipedia. W00t! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Votes like this one are what's wrong with AfD. Address the merits of the nom, dammit. - crz crztalk 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comments like the one above are what's wrong with AfD, Wikipedia, and indeed THE UNIVERSE. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum: from your nom: Delete this for the good of Wikipedia; this presumes that you know better than many, many, many, many other users, admins, and bureaucrats what is "good for Wikipedia". This is strikingly similar to the argument used ~~in the 80's~~ re: pornography; "I know it when I see it". While you are perfectly within your rights to have a subjective opinion about what is "good for Wikipedia", I'll thank you not to use that as part of a nomination to delete an article. An article should not be deleted for such a subjective reason.
    - Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) (Potter, J., concurring). See here. - crz crztalk 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, (521 U.S. 844) -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL I wasn't endorsing the sentiment, I was merely correcting the decade. - crz crztalk 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hee. I know; just playing along. I'm a frustrated lay lawyer. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition; if Wikipedia...the online encyclopedia, mind you...were to start deleting similar articles (leet, for example), we would soon be the laughingstock of the online community. This would be comparable to Fark.com banning nudity, MySpace banning horrible in-browser music, or FilePile allowing the RIAA & MPAA to have accounts. Please re-consider this deletion...if not for the good of Wikipedia, but to allow those users who are publicly known as Wikipedia editors to save face, to allow us not to have our lunch money taken away by those Britannica bastards. Please. Thank you. The user from Chicago yields the remainder of his time to the floor. Or the ceiling. Whichever. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 18:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The user from New Jersey thanks for user from Chicago for his reasonable criticism, but reminds him to address the substantive arguments in the nomination, namely WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, not the fluff appended by the user from New Jersey at the end there. - crz crztalk 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. Plus, I just wanted to say W00t! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, our guideline for neologisms, requires reliable secondary sources about the term before we have an article on it. Internet slang terms are a sub-category of neologisms. GRBerry 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of internet slang terms. I do note, however, that the word has quite a long history, going back to at least Elizibethan times, pace Shakespeare: "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York. W00t!" Herostratus 05:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection Comment: There is a popular online retailer by the same name, so perhaps it should instead redirect to a disambiguation page pointing to both the List of Internet slang phrases and Woot (retailer). Frankenroc 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it clearly needs work on the sourcing however. Trollderella 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve the sourcing. A quick Lexis-Nexis search turns up a half-dozen news articles mentioning the term just from the past year or so, so improving the sourcing should be doable. --Delirium 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am getting six hits in Westlaw's "allnews" database for (w00t). Three of them around "w00t!media", a media company targeted to gamers. The last three - from the Chicago Tribune, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, and the Boulder Daily Camera - pretty much just give the definition. All three are not articles at all - just lists of internet slang terms with translations. The mentions are extremely brief and there's no word as to etymology or usage. - crz crztalk 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's semi-notable information, which could be used in research and for general curiosity. Wouldn't hurt if it was with the other internet phrases as well. -- 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to the internet-slang article. There's no way this one term will ever be accompanied by enough information to warrant an entire article, but I agree that it's relevant enough to be documented. Klestrob44 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d3l33t and redirect to List of internet slang phrases. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:OR. The Kinslayer 10:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. --- RockMFR 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases, lock the doors and shutter the windows.--Alf ^melmac 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word is used even in non-computer/gamer related culture (TV shows and the like) and, while I'm pressed for time and can't look right now, there are probably some sources. What are we going to delete next, pwned? Yes, the article needs some fixing, but that doesn't mean that it needs deleting. I also think that it is so commonly used, even out of its original culture, that it deserves its own article, rather than to be merged onto a list. J0lt C0la 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was just reading today's User Friendly cartoon, which uses the word woot, looked it up on WP and noted the deletion tag. IMO, as it is something people do look up (at least I did) it is worth an article. Whether the article is good is another question: Clearly it needs improvement, also in giving sources (though this is difficult when documenting very recent cultural phenomena, and I acknowledge that WP risks bordering on original research there) but it is way more informative (and also correct, I suppose) than the one-liner in List of Internet slang phrases. Simon A. 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC) -- I just googled to check for further sources. We now have two references though not exactly scholary ones. That's a start IMO. Simon A. 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word has certainly earned its own article due to its popularity. If nothing else, merge with internet slang page. Slicedoranges 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was capmove to Release the Stars, then Redirect/merge to Rufus Wainwright as compromise solution that addresses all the issues raised. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release The Stars[edit]

Unsourced crystal balling. Pure speculation. "Little more is known of the project". Contested prod. MER-C 12:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, but put what little content there is on the Rufus Wainwright page. Akihabara 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Straight from Wainwright's webpage: "Rufus' next studio album will be titled, 'Release The Stars.'" Is no longer crystal-ballism. --12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep There's not much there, but it'll just be recreated in two months anyway. ~~If deleted, endorse merge.~~--Kchase T 06:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We know the project exists, and, as Kchase says, there's no point in deleting it if it'll just be recreated when the album comes out. Amnewsboy 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Rufus Wainwright entry. I agree with Akihabara - there's no need for a separate entry for an album title whether it exists now or will in the future.TruthGal 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete and merge" is discouraged by the GFDL. It's not a good option.--Kchase T 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither the words "delete" nor "merge" are mentioned in the GFDL entry you cite. But if it really bothers you, then consider my vote to be just a simple Delete. TruthGal 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for my poor choice of linking. It's probably in the full legalese text, but I'm just repeating what a dozen other admins have told me before.--Kchase T 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Mets501 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Lusth[edit]

This is one of the many Survivor contestant articles where the person really isn't notable. Through the many AFD's, it has become clear that, unless the player has won the show, did something really, really notable on the show, or did something notable outside of the show, they really don't deserve an article. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete ~~as the show is still in progress. If/when he's voted off then nominate, but this is premature~~ Not notable and might as well kill it now. Otto4711 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this goes into consideration, but he did appear in Playboy's Fourplay, and is noted elsewhere in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_sex_tape
Delete because he doesn't meet notability guidelines. Yet. Slideshow Bob 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Hold-On. We are now only two days from the finalle, and the declaration of the winner. Both Oscar Lusth and Sundra Oakley are up for AFD, but both are also still in the running. If either of them wins, that will make a major change in their notability status. It does not make much sense to me to close either or both of these AFDs and delete the articles when in only two days there may be a dramatic shift in the notability situation for one of them. If these AFDs are closed and one of them wins, then the article will need to be recreated within days of it's deletion. If the AFDs can be held from closing for just a couple more days, we can avoid that situation and know for sure if one of them is the winner. I'm not arguing that these articles are premature, and if these AFDs were being held a few weeks back I would have said to torch the articles. But at this point, this close to the end, if the AFDs can just stay open for a couple more days.... - TexasAndroid 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to this season's Survivor article. Did not win, so not really notable as the runner up. - TexasAndroid 04:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 1st runner up. Edison 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly I believe anyone in the final vote should be notable enough for the pedia.. His other exploits seem to only reinforce it. EnsRedShirt 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the runner-up, popular among the viewers, and he was the most competitive in the challenges. Actually he deserved to win. Gtrojan 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article, so I wouldn't be voting on whether to keep or delete this it, but since he ended up being the runner-up, we shouldn't get rid of the aricle now. --The President of Cool 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Memorable contestant. Very popular. --Thankyoubaby 07:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Survivor contestant. Pcpp 12:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable contestant in the game in his own right, plus the celebrity sex tape reference. Plus there's previous form, with Kelly Wiglesworth, Kim Johnson, Neleh Dennis, Clay Jordan, Matthew Von Ertfelda, Twila Tanner, Katie Gallagher and Danielle DiLorenzo all having articles when they have realistically done nothing notable other than finish second in Survivor (I have excluded Colby, Boston Rob and Stephenie from this list as they have notability either outside their single second place finish or outside Survivor in general). Jxan3000 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These people don't deserve articles. And many of them were listed by me at a combined AFD, which was closed with no consensus. These people aren't notable either. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep second place. others in 2nd also have articles. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read note below before reading vote-Keep Oscar should have his own article. I agree with other users that he is a notable contestent. Scentzoom 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note-This is users first and only edit. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He finished second, thus making him notable. -- Scorpion 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected per AFD. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pride of Baltmore[edit]

This is just a stub with a misspelled title. There is a full article at Pride of Baltimore. Pjbflynn 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pride of Baltimore, and of course add any information in the misspelled article into the correctly spelled article that's not already there. —EdGl 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Pride of Baltimore. Seems like a clear-cut case to me. Jayden54 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This doesn't seem in the least controversial, can it be speedy redirected the way samurai warriors was (above)? delldot | talk 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect a misspelled title? Surely Wikipedia doesn't cover all possible misspellings. Pjbflynn 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but common misspellings are frequently made into redirects. I don't know how common this one really is, but google gives about 43,900 hits for "Baltmore", for whatever that's worth. I suggest redirecting because redirects are cheap, but it's no big deal either way. delldot | talk 01:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing worth merging and the article was pretty much made in one edit (by User:Geo Swan). Unlikely misspellings are clutter, see WP:RFD. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied to User:Striver/Siege of the Banu Qurayza by Striver and deleted by Gurch. Chick Bowen 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of the Banu Qurayza[edit]

This article, created by User:Striver is a quote farm and a content fork of a section in the existing article Banu Qurayza. Splitting a daughter article from Banu Qurayza is unnecessary, as the article is only about 26KB long, but it contains pretty much all the necessary material about its subject. Beit Or 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a POV fork designed to get around ongoing content disputes at the main article. Its main purpose appears to be to excuse the killing of the Banu Qurayza men by erroneously asserting that the massacre was conducted according to Jewish law; at best, this is a fringe theory unsupported by the extant sources. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Banu Qurayza is the article of a tribe, this is the article about a notable event that the tribe underwent. The tribe is notable for many things other than this event, including its pre Islamic history and the events that occurred before the siege. When the article was created, i had worked to expand the siege part of the article, and my addition, including the previously large amount of text that was there ended up in the siege part of the article taking over 2/3 of the entire article. At the time of the split, no material was removed, it was not an attempt to dodge any consensus of any kind. On the contrary, this very siege has been a hot topic for long and has several times ended in the lock down of the entire tribe article. Considering the highly controversial and notable nature of this siege, it is nothing more than normal procedure to give it it's own article. Remember that this is not "the X perspecite of the Seige" or anything, it is just Siege of the Banu Qurayza, a NPOV and accurate name of a event deserving a article that devotes full attention to it. Other precedence can be seen in the article Khaybar and the Battle of Khaybar. It is true that the content of both this and the original article are in dispute, but the split was not done to dodge or evade any consensus, on the contrary, this article has been prominently linked to from the main article and a section describing it has been introduced. But without giving any good reason, a part of the editors have refused the split of this highly notable event and want it confined to one single article. I have invited them to expand the article on this event, but they have refused to do so, and now is one of them trying to get ridd of the article, claiming it is a "POV Fork". My question is: How can an article about a battle be a POV fork of an article about a tribe? --Striver 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, regarding content dispute, i again urge you to edit the article. Some editor undertook himself to rewrite the siege section, but did it on the main page and choose to ignore the article devoted to the siege. On the talk page, i commended him for bringing more material, but also asked him why he deleted other views that existed on that article while doing so. Now that the main article has dramatically changed its POV, this article is accused of having the other POV, something that was never intended. right now, i am working to incorporate that new material to this article. The effort is on having a ALL POV article, and doing so in detail would end up giving one aspect of the tribes history undue weight and overshadow the rest of it's history. --Striver 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Your use of "Undue weight" is totally inapposite here. As Zora points out, virtually everything known about the BQ relates of their interaction with Muhammad and his followers. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that includes much more than this notable but single event. Right? and btw, if you read the article, you will see that it has substantial pre-Islamic sections, sections that will be totally overshadowed in size if we merge all the siege content, as is being done right now, and then add it to the main tribe article --Striver 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since all we know about the Banu Qurayza consists of their fatal interaction with the Muslim community at Medina, as reported by Islamic sources (which makes what we "know" rather nebulous), taking this out of the article and leaving a shell with nothing in it is contra-indicated. The title of the new article is also misleading, since the meat of the dispute is 1) the events leading to the siege, and the credibility of the reasons given for it and 2) the aftermath of the siege, the killing of the adult male Banu Qurayza. The title "Banu Qurayza" is truly NPOV, since it takes no position on the morality of the conflict and its conclusion. No POV forks, please. Zora 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lets rename the Battle+aftermath article, no dispute on my side. But the fact remains that Banu Qurayza is the name of a tribe that lived for several hundred years, and having a tribe article consisting of 2/3 about a single event is not neutral in it self, quoting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If the argument is that the event is not notable, then keep it small, if the argument is that the event is notable, then it most surely deserves it's own article. The name of the article is of no concern for me, i only with to follow WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Striver 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, it seems strange that you vote to delete, and then proceed to revert me when i try to work on the article. Please do not remove my work without comments or attempts of communication or compromise while the afd is in progress.--Striver 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, are you suggesting that the fact there is an ongoing afd precludes you from following wikipedia policy on this article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i simply mean that it is unfair to argue that this article is pov and redundant and thus needs to be delete, while insisting to revert to such a version. Please do not remove content from the article as it gives the people judging the article a bad impression, and further. i would like to quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of articles ... is a common vandal edit.". Further, your edit summary "rv per past talk page discussions" is not helpful since you have not left any message there, nor is there any message that justifies removal of content.--Striver 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, you again removed all Islam-non-endorsing material giving "alright then, I'm removing it because your additions are needlessly long winded, confusing and of questionable relevance" as edit summary. If they are long, then work with me to make them better, they are in no way confusing, and how in the world can William Muirs account of the Siege of the Banu Qurayza be irrelevant to the Siege of the Banu Qurayza article? You are disrupting the afd process by making the article unbalanced and then argue that it is a POV fork, please refrain from that. --Striver 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Briangotts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom GabrielF 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article was cerated without consensus in order to remove material valid but unpleasant to some from the main article. Also, there is no real justification for a separate article, since the demise of that tribe is almost all we know about it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no atempt to remove anything. Could you please inform me of a single sentence that i have tried to remove or hide? Please do not give unfactual statements. As for other other things known about the tribe, except for its demise, anyone interested can see the main article and view the unfactuality of your statement.--Striver 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i am finished presenting the view of William Muir, the article is considerably more balanced. If you doubt it, read his views in the "non-Muslim view" section. --Striver 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and harvest details. frummer 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork per nom, Tewfik^Talk 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this article needs a lot of work, but it should be kept so as to discuss the events in greater depth. I don't see how this is a POV fork, since it doesn't cater to any one persepective, but only describes te events.Bless sins 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no more information than is already present in the article. All we have is Ibn Ishaq (as excerpted in Tabari) and a few hadith, all of which are already included. Information will not magically appear if we fork off another article. Zora 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Moshe is deleting everything new i add, and then people argue "pov Fork". That is not honest. Original content will not appear just as with any other historical account, but secondary sources are plentifully and the subject of the article is so controversial that there is no risk of running out of information, we have after all access to 1400 years of scholarly comments. If you think about it, we also have only one single original source for the existence of Jesus, right?--Striver 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete, the condition being that Battle of Khaybar be merged into Khaybar, as it serves as a precedent for having two distinct articles on the Qurayza. else, Keep. the EoI and other sources do provide a decent amount of information about Qurayza's history and activities before the hijra (as well as the siege), and the siege itself is controversial enough to warrant its own article, especially as a number of factors concerning it have been disputed. ITAQALLAH 09:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaybar is a place about which much can be written outside of the battle. Moreover, the "Battle of Khaybar" is well known as a distinct event. The Banu Qurayza are a tribe, not a place; moreover, they are a tribe about whom virtually nothing is known beyond the fact that they were massacred. There is no comparison between the two. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"virtually nothing is known beyond the fact that they were massacred"? That is most certainly untrue for anyone bothering to read the main article, why is this sort of false statements continually repeated in his afd? In fact, the main article has more infomation about other aspects of the tribe that it has about ths siege and killings. --Striver 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 192.114.91.250 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editors second edit. --Striver 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into original article. The quotes are too long and the article is so colorful one almost thinks its supposed to be edible. --64.230.127.103 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial issues, please accept the invitation on the talk page regarding improving the article. Note: Users third edit, and first day of editing.--Striver 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; POV fork, WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment i have userfied it and requested speedy deletion.--Striver 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close the afd --Striver 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge back, no PoV forking. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Rugby Manager[edit]

Minor webgame with the prod removed for the reason article is factually correct and not advertising. The game scores about seven Google hits. I don't believe the material is either independently verifiable or that it meets inclusion criteria, regardless of whether or not it is factually correct or advertising. Wafulz 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the original article but fixed it up a little to be factually correct. This may be a minor game when compared to visitor numbers across some other catagories/sports, but in its area does well as a google search for rugby manager games shows by placing it in 5th place as the highest web based game in the genre. A game not being huge does not mean that it is not relevent to those interested in the subject area, and surely wikipedia exists to cover the relevent information or options in any sensible genre? 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not entirely, Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia of material that needs to meet two criteria:
  1. Verification from reliable third party sources
  2. Material that meets notability criteria.
- Right now, neither of these appear to be met- I could make a game to simulate being a Netball manager, and it would certainly be the top hit seeing as it would be unique, but it still wouldn't get an article because it doesn't meet the two criteria. Having a high Google rank in its own category doesn't address the lack of sources. --Wafulz 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:WEB (or WP:V) so delete, unless notability can be shown somehow. Jayden54 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no big deal. I'd spent a while trying to find a game like this so thought others might be interested, thats all. I found several other similar sized games on here that I'd enjoyed so thought I'd help out by fixing up the description of this one. I'm not sure the netball analogy is relevent though as netball is a niche sport played by high school girls and watched by nobody except their family, while Rugby is one of the most popular sports in many countries including Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and more recently Romania and Italy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandad80 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD G11. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Healthcare Solutions[edit]

Looks like a company advertising their wares. Rufous 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the company fails WP:CORP and this article is nothing more than an advertisement (might even be speedy deleted). Jayden54 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. → JARED ^(t) 22:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD G11, blatant and obviously unencyclopedic spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, bad enough if I get Spam in my inbox, don't need it on Wiki Alf photoman 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 07:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One ringing[edit]

This article is essentially little more than a rehashing of a joke column by a Sports Illustrated writer. SuperMachine 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly sourced, not really notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JP06035 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; notability not established. Heimstern Läufer 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom. Anomo 12:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Debatable notability, and innacurate! JMalky 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unless cleaned up. While Vashti's comment below is well-reasoned, there are flaws within it. First and foremost, copyright laws of the United Kingdom are not so much a concern to the Wikimedia Foundation as are copyright laws of the United States, where most of the Wikimedia servers are hosted. Also, the non-commercial aspect of fair use is one that we should be reluctant to breach; the goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia, and non-commercial images and articles are contrary to that goal. Finally, judging how much fair use is allowed is a tough call to make. An argument could be made that one solitary image of an ident encompasses a majority (or even 100%) of the ident's content, as frame-by-frame, little change occurs in many idents (particularly early 1950's/1960's still idents).

Because Wikiwoohoo has offered to rewrite the articles after the new year, I won't delete the articles at this time. What I'm doing instead is removing the images for the time being, until the entire article can be re-written. If it's not done within a reasonable amount of time (three weeks or so), I'll delete them entirely. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Idents and Presentation[edit]

I do this with a heavy heart, but these ident pages fail WP:FAIR with the large number of irrelevant images to the articles, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. My greatest concern is with the large number of images on all of these pages, which could land Wikipedia in a lot of bother, as they are not covered by fair use. Anything that can be should be merged into the relevant channel article, but I think it is the time for all these articles to go. Wikipedia is not TV Ark or The TV Room, which I feel are more appropriate places for ident information and articles like these.

Also included for deletion within this nomination are:

BBC television idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BBC One Balloon idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BBC 'Rhythm & Movement' idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BBC 'Circle' idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tgheretford (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much agree with the nominator, although maybe it's worth removing all the images, and then merging all the articles together into one single article? Jayden54 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a lot of images but they should come under fair use - they're all relevant to information given on the page, they're all low-res still images and as the BBC and E4 don't sell their idents its impossible to cause them any financial loss. I disagree with the idea that there are more appropriate places for this information. This is an encylopedia of knowledge. We can't remove information from it just because people can find it somewhere else, what's the point in that? ~~ Peteb16
Comment - some of these images (e.g. Image:Itv-beach.jpg) are hardly low res. I have reservations as to the legality of the current use, but I am not sure on the legal standing, if anyone can confirm the legal status my vote becomes delete. However, I do think some action is needed, I cant see the point of images such as Image:ITVNC Ceased broadcasting.jpg and I think these articles in many cases would be better folded into the channel they are talking about e.g. ITV1 stuff goes to ITV1 Pit-yacker 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding WP:FAIR policy, the articles fail section 3, 5 and 8. Clicking on some random images within the articles show that many of them lack a source and fair use rationale information required to comply with fair use polcy and law. --tgheretford (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree that the articles fail those sections at all. Section 3 - The pictures are there for illustrative purposes, to illustrate the idents. Are you seriously suggesting that someone might pirate a video sequence from one still of it? Would you prefer that, rather than having an image to illustrate each ident, that the articles carried descriptive paragraphs? "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Section 5 - This is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think these articles are encyclopaedic.

Section 8 - The images are not decorative - they "identify the subject of the article" in the most literal sense! The articles document the various series of idents, and as such, I feel that they make a very significant contribution to it. As for the absence of a fair use rationale on the images, that's not a reason to delete the articles, that's a reason to add the rationale to the image pages. Vashti 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per above. I suggest that one still from each ident is far below the legal threshold for fair use - isn't it something like 4% or 10% of the total? The images illustrate the content of the articles and are not just lists of pictures, nor do they replace the channel's use of idents. There is no free alternative, the material is previously published, and I do consider these summaries to be encyclopaedic and of historical interest. Copyright law of the United Kingdom states "s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical … for the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose does not infringe any copyright in the work provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement …" - Wikipedia is surely non-commercial research? The application of policy in the original AFD seems to be extremely peripheral, as you really have to stretch to get these pages to meet any of them. Vashti 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Wikipedians unfamiliar with British network television, since the style of a range of different striking images/animations/scenes for idents instead than one or two standard idents was pioneered by BBC 2 in the 1990s (which oddly barely gets a mention in these pages), this has been a common ident pattern for network TV channels in the UK. These ident schemes (effectively a form of advertising) can be expected to change substantially every few years. Bwithh 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete as per Vashti's statement--David Straub 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete. I diagree strongly with this nomination on the grounds that since a lot of work to include correct facts has gone on, the articles are no longer simply collections of images. The separate articles regarding BBC One idents document was has effectively become a part of British culture. To delete these would be incorrect, certainly The TV Room to name one presentation website does a similar job to the BBC television idents article, but in my opinion, the article is better; it goes into much more detail and the images help to illustrate the facts put out, rather than simply being collections of similar images. I woul very much recommend the articles are not deleted, but if necessary, the amount of images trimmed and more relevant text added. Wikiwoohoo 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, articles on the BBC channels have had ident images removed since they are explained within the BBC television idents article. Rather than delete we should pool resources to improve the articles. I've started doing my bit by adding fair use rationales to images. I don't think it's necessary to delete articles which can otherwise be improved. Wikiwoohoo 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ITV Idents and Presentation, unlike the BBC ident articles the images shown are mostly captures by myself, and are not taken from other websites, so therefore are not found elsewhere on the web. On the ground of there being other sites in existences like 'The TV Room' or 'TV Ark', these sites are run by small teams or individuals and thus are not particularly frequently updated. Theses sites are also at time unstable and have long periods of downtime. Aidsoo 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. --Marknew 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Jayden54's and Wikiwoohoo's suggestion, that maybe the articles can be merged (I would prefer into the specific channel articles, they shouldn't exceed article size recommendations). In regards to the number of images, I wish to quote (this really only applies to some of the BBC nominated articles) from Category:Images used from The TV Room and The TV Room Plus:

“

It must be made clear that permission has granted by the owner of these sites for images to be used on Wikipedia but for a limited amount to be used per article.

”

Just something to bear in mind. If something good has come out of this nom, it has got people talking and maybe the content of the articles can be kept somewhere with a minimal number of fair use images to keep within policy (in my opinion) and the GFDL which Wikipedia must adhere to. --tgheretford (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of The TV Room who I contacted meant just his images when used within articles but yes, the amount of images should be trimmed. Perhaps this nomination could be postponed, at least until some changes were made to the articles? Would that be possible? Wikiwoohoo 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could withdraw the nomination whilst changes are made, and have it closed as a "keep and cleanup" decision as per WP:DPR. As the above shows no-consensus in the decision (in my opinion) and as I am not an administrator, I can't close the nomination (as per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), but I could work towards a compromise in a "keep and cleanup" decision and withdraw the nomination. However, I may renominate them in the future if they haven't improved, as per my nomination. I'm sure you would do a good job cleaning up the articles. --tgheretford (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'keep and cleanup' decision is ideal and eventually what I was thinking. If you could do that then it would be fantastic, and I will double my efforts in improving the articles! :) Wikiwoohoo 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Provide a link to "The TV Room" instead. NotMuchToSay 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It's not simply a matter of station cruft, it's a matter of nice big pretty pictures cruft. Officially, of course, FAIR is breached -- although unofficially these pages look like a geocities site, not an encyclopedia. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've made a start at reducing the number of images within BBC television idents and changing the layout. However, I will be away from Wikipedia over Christmas and into the new year so would it be possible to for a decision on the fate of these articles to be carried out in the new year once I am back and improvements are completed? Wikiwoohoo 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sadly not. As per deletion policy and WP:GD, discussion is usually kept open for five days before being closed (unless it is closed early for a reason). --tgheretford (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and strong cleanup, these are notable enough but do need to be cleaned up badly. --///Jrothwell ^(talk)/// 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strong cleanup, as per Jrothwell's statement. Television presentation should be given a mention on Wikipedia (I have edited some of the BBC articles myself), but admittedly the articles are extensive and probably do not come under "fair use". I suggest that a single page each is kept for the BBC and ITV, but with far fewer images, used as examples to illustrate rather than galleries of data. Silver Nemesis 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- These pages are a form of commercial for a TV station, and are featured heavily on its respective television stations (before every broadcast). Keep all. Arbiteroftruth 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, cleanup if necessary. A lot of work has gone into these and are notable articles. It would be wrong to delete them because they're encyclopedic. Last time I checked, this was an encyclopedia. Cipher ^(Yell) 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, improve if necessary. The current text, images and links I find quite valueable. It would be a waste to delete them. Feel free to improve them instead.

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

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

The result was delete; no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources, if/when they are found. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Burial[edit]

Non-notable Band Inhumer 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Meets Criterion 4 of WP:BAND by going on a "national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" (New Zealand). However, this statement will need a reliable source if the article is to be kept. —ShadowHalo 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As ShadowHalo says, they've had a national tour in New Zealand (and Australia) which means that the article passes WP:MUSIC, but it needs some references though. Jayden54 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; redirect appears to be a no-brainer, so I'll do that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi (Dragon Ball)[edit]

Kiwi is a minor character that does not deserve this big page, he should be in the List of other aliens in Dragon Ball page, and he has a section on the list of Frieza related characters. -- General Cui 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of other aliens in Dragon Ball. Split Infinity ^(talk) 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of other aliens in Dragon Ball. -- Frieza-Bomber 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This user may be a sockpuppet / puppetmaster. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frieza-Bomber. JRP 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of other aliens in Dragon Ball. -- 24.3.28.181 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is believed to also belong to General Cui. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frieza-Bomber. JRP 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny Lilithborne (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
~~What they said~~ Switch to the List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball redirect, seems a better choice. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball instead as that's where it's already covered. Nemu 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sbfj 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball as TTN said. Not because of what General Cui and his three sock puppets said (can't you guys tell they're the same person?) but because I don't know why this article was made to begin with, considering how incredibly trivial the character is. Daishokaioshin 04:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep bad faith nomination made by vandal. User:General Cui is a sockpuppet of User:Frieza-Bomber, and most likely the anons are the same person too. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frieza-Bomber. User seems to have a personal vendetta, as he has nominated other Dragon Ball articles for deletion. I don't know anything about this subject, however, so a redirect may be in order. Wavy G 02:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got punk'd. Speedy Keep per Wavy G. Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- He wasn't around very long and did nothing important--SUIT 18:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made the page. Character is extremely important in his saga. Also, General Cui is Wiki star, frieza bomber, myer link, and many numerous other sockpuppets. The same person is deliberately joining under different names to cause chaos. - Zarbon
Redirect to List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball. This minor character—I would go so far as to call him an incidental character—isn't notable enough to have an article dedicated to him. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball. While he is a minor character he deserves some mentioning. I say redirect this to the character list and add a picture or two to his section in the list as well as his appearances in other media. --Maphisto86 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball. Extreamly minor character, who's only significance was being killed by Vegeta on Namek. -- Dasnedius 17:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Sailor Romance[edit]

A summary of a fanfiction, which Wikipedia is definitely not the place for. Quite possibly vanity and certainly not notable. Sparky Lurkdragon 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also call it poorly written and not objective.--68.171.101.85 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not vanity, the author expressed surprise at this article on a Sailor Moon-related message board. But it's still fan fiction. Danny Lilithborne 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fan fiction, which means it fails WP:FICT pretty badly. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thinly-veiled puff piece, very badly written, ludicrous subject matter. Lenky

Delete - per above.Antimatter Spork 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. ChaosAkita 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SlackerEmeritus 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's pure fanfiction summary. Lunamaria 23:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. This has no place on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papirini (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, wrong website. This is an encyclopedia. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Weekend Films[edit]

Film company that does not meet WP:CORP. Only 27 Google hits for the name, 6 of them "unique", and most of them MySpace. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only assertion of notability is winning a university film competion - hardly "major". Tevildo 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name suggests a link with Eric Idle's Rutland Weekend Television but this turns out to be bogus. Sam Blacketer 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Conscious 12:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac Don & J-Money[edit]

Appear to be insufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article on their album Look at Me (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Same reason. --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has added new notable sources. --Chrisottjr 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is under contruction. You cannot base an opinion on the fact of an unfinished article. --Chrisottjr 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the information that's already there, it has been shown that this duo is not only not shown to be notable, but has been shown to be non-notable. And if you hope to be persuasive, stay off personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you're the one attacking. --Chrisottjr 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Meets this criterion. --Chrisottjr 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Meets this criterion. --Chrisottjr 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Also mentioned in the All Media Guide at http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:mr1m961oaepo. (AMG Artist ID P 825654) --Chrisottjr 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any verifiable citations for any of these claims? --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the bio at http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:mr1m961oaepo. The page is very much in line with what was "published by a reliable source" as stated at WP:V. --Chrisottjr 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also note that the AfD has been removed from the artist page, so this is no longer an issue. Sorry you didn't get your wish. --Chrisottjr 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removal was improper based on Wikipedia guidelines. The remover has been warned. Any further removal will draw a block. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - One more note: the biography page that you cited did not establish any of the notability criteria that you asserted. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        http://billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?JSESSIONID=FyvcJrpLvvpVGWtz1hx0YJ0RyjwPTfhzbtYvQTTTQMJzhjvh9fHL!1508189187&pid=774662 --Chrisottjr 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        http://billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?JSESSIONID=FQZ7Tsj5FH7YMwwSlJmpWYpTxTvvDhX4c2GRS4Gv3CdgtnCbXpyc!2045378558&pid=774662&aid=810100 --Chrisottjr 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        http://billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=774662&model.vnuAlbumId=810100 --Chrisottjr 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, how do any of these establish any of the notability criteria? --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not see why the decision of this page is entirely up to you! It doesn't say that anywhere in the rules! I'll spell out some guidelines in the notability criteria, too. --Chrisottjr 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." This criterion is documented in the article, under the singles section. Notice that it appears on two national charts, which can be verified specifically & not vaguely http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=774662&model.vnuAlbumId=810100, specifically. The numbers are specifically in line with the Billboard.com chart postings. Are you saying that Billboard is not a verifiable source? --Chrisottjr 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "A good online resource for music and musicians is the All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com/), which gives a level of indication as to what a band or musician has done." As I stated before, much of the information documented in the article comes from this source.

Please also note that Cadillac Don & J-Money is part of Asylum Records, a known record company featuring notable rappers such as Bun B, Cadillac Don & J-Money, Cam'ron, Lil' Boosie, Lil' Flip, Lil' Wyte, Mike Jones, Paul Wall, Pimp C, and Webbie, to name a few. --Chrisottjr 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.asylumrecords.com/new/artists.php --Chrisottjr 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New album also includes acts featuring notable rappers Bun B & Paul Wall. --Chrisottjr 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XXL Magazine has now been cited in the article. --67.46.0.13 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see enough notability to pass WP:MUSIC, so a keep is probably appropriate. I'd like to see the sentences that are taken directly from other bios, like the one at AMG, rewritten, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charted artist meets WP:MUSIC. Does need to get rid of the obsolete infobox, per WP:MUSICIAN, and more sources would be good, but as a stub, it's ok. Xtifr _tälk 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outta My System[edit]

First of all, I can't even tell what this article is supposed to be in the first place. Also, this doesn't seem very notable at all. I think this is about some sort of television show, but I can't tell; in any case, this should be deleted. Possible cruft too..? Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can tell me what it is. --Tarret 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is one hell of a run-on. This actually is a song by Bow Wow ([79]), but this article is still too incoherent and pointless to keep. PullToOpen 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a reference to a song on an album by Bow Wow [80]. Individual songs (that were not released as singled) on an album are nn. meshach 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. So badly written looks like a speedy thing. Anomo 12:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budchievement[edit]

This is ridiculous; it's probably something some kid thought up at school. I highly doubt Budchievement is a word. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, unsourced neologism. Oh, and Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. —ShadowHalo 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De... lete... it Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Probably some college student trying to be funny. PullToOpen 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim of notability. Mytildebang 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Prob qualifies as nonesense. Definitely no notability claim. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Note: No claim of notability isn't a criterion for speedy unless it's about a person, group or website. I don't think this article technically qualifies for speedy (it's garbage, but not really patent nonsense), but it should definitely be deleted. Heimstern Läufer 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 07:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buds Of course it's not a word, but that doesn't mean it won't one day be. We can be trendsetters here, people...think about it.

When you're old and you hear some young kids having a conversation along the lines of:

Young Kid 1 - "Got my first Budchievement last week." Young Kid 2 - "That's great man...congrats! How was it?" Young Kid 1 - "I can't remember." Young Kid 2 - "Ahhhh, that really is a Budchievement!"

you can have a silent chuckle thinking about how you helped that to happen.

Save Budchievement, save the world.

Willie East Side - this deserves a chance, as mentioned above it is not patent nonsense. Perhaps its progentors would care to provide some more substantiation, examples, etc.

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renault turbo owners club[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, nothing in the article to establish notability. Appears to be advertisement. --SunStar Net^talk 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom - The RSJ 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Subject appears to be non notable. May be speediable under G11. By the way, the lead was a copyvio from http://www.rtoc.org/. I removed that, and couldn't find evidence that the rest of the article was a copyvio, but keep an eye out. delldot | talk 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it. NN. Collard 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. WP:ADS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. You could choose {{db-spam}}, {{db-web}}, or {{db-club}}. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Jay(Reply) 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Malinche Flamenco[edit]

Weak assertion of notability, mainly local performances. Only sixteen hits on Google, none of which seem to be good WP:RS reliable sources, aside from eir own website. ShadowHalo 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. - Justin (Authalic) 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense from serial hoaxer. NawlinWiki 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpangatan[edit]

This seems to be a hoax; there are no Google hits for the term Chimpangatan. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite hoax. Speedy {{db-nonsense}} if possible. -- Scientizzle 23:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Other hoaxes from (Hannonmcnasty (talk · contribs) include Whiskey squirrelv & Whiskey Squirrel. -- Scientizzle 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only six ghits for the more properly spelled name (if such can be said for a mythical creature) "chimpangutan", none of which provide any evidence such a creature exists. D e nni ^talk 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete bordering onto speedy delete, if it really is a hoax. Please, delete this! The RSJ 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matazone[edit]

Tagged as A7 (no asseriton of notability) but has been around for a long time so I thought it could do with more eyes. Certainbly gives every appearance of being yet another non-notable web animation site. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB, alexa = 469367 [81]. MER-C 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question In the discussion page for WP:WEB, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that traffic rankings add to the determination of notability for a web site. Can this article's notability not be measured by its ability to meet WP:WEB? Sancho McCann 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Jefferson Anderson 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Website has been mentioned (albeit briefly) in national newspaper (link to article scan added to external links - Criterion 1 of WP:WEB?), as well as the StickScene site being referenced by the BBC (link to BBC site in article - Again, criterion 1?). Two of the animation series were featured on MTV2 Europe (added to the article, but no reference - Criterion 3 of WP:WEB?). I frequent this site and update this article occasionally. Guy L 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: A reference of the LGG animation being on MTV2 appears is the blurb of this magazine, as well as mention of the same fact on this b3ta page (under Skippy the Goth Kangaroo). Guy L 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Animations from this site have been shown reguarly on MTV Europe as noted above --Enotayokel 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. Anomo 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MER-C. Media mentions of website are trivial. Possible sufficient notability of LGG does not transfer to this website. Bwithh 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB Booshakla 18:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "iPodNova.net Advanced Statistics". Ipodnova. 2006-12-17. Retrieved 2006-12-17.

[1] "iPodNova.net Advanced Statistics". Ipodnova. 2006-12-17. Retrieved 2006-12-17.

[1]